2008 (10) TMI 504 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of deemed credit under Notification No. 58/97.
2. Compliance with conditions of exemption Notification.
3. Adjudication order set aside by Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Appeal by Revenue challenging Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Issue 1: Denial of Deemed Credit under Notification No. 58/97
The Tribunal's remand order highlighted the entitlement of the appellant for deemed credit on hot rolled steel products used for manufacturing tubes as per Notification No. 58/97. The Adjudicating Authority initially denied this benefit citing non-compliance with the conditions of the notification. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: Compliance with Conditions of Exemption Notification
Upon review, it was established that the Respondent had indeed manufactured strips from billets, which were subsequently utilized in making pipes and tubes. The Respondent had paid duty on these strips and availed deemed credit as per the notification for the strips used internally. The key contention revolved around the requirement that inputs should be received directly from the manufacturer with duty payment proof. In this case, the Respondent had adhered to the conditions by paying duty on the strips manufactured by them, as confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur.

Issue 3: Adjudication Order Set Aside by Commissioner (Appeals)
The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly determined that the Respondent had fulfilled the conditions of the notification by paying the duty on the manufactured strips used in the final product. Consequently, the adjudication order denying the deemed credit was overturned. The Commissioner's decision was based on the fact that the Respondent's compliance with the duty payment requirements was not in dispute, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 4: Appeal by Revenue Challenging Commissioner (Appeals) Order
In light of the established compliance by the Respondent with the conditions of the exemption notification, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to set aside the adjudication order. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's ruling, ultimately rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, in this case revolved around the denial of deemed credit under Notification No. 58/97, the compliance of the Respondent with the conditions of the exemption notification, the reversal of the adjudication order by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the subsequent rejection of the Revenue's appeal by the Tribunal. The decision emphasized the importance of fulfilling the specified conditions for availing benefits under such notifications and upheld the Commissioner's ruling based on the Respondent's demonstrated compliance with the duty payment requirements.