2015 (5) TMI 1079 - AT - Customs

Non-eligibility to avail exemption under Notification 203/92-Cus. dated 19-5-1992 - DEEC licence - the respondent has failed to produce proof regarding non-availment of Modvat credit or reversal of Modvat credit as envisaged in the DEEC Scheme - Held that - reliance on certificate issued by the C.A. as also on a letter of Supdt. in the Grounds of Appeal we find that this fact has not been contested by the department. We also find the first appellate authority has given liberty to verify the correctness of the certificate given by the C.A. on which there is no information from both sides. In our considered view if the first appellate authority has relied upon the certificate issued by the C.A. and a letter of Supdt. to uphold the respondent s contention that they have not availed Cenvat credit nothing survives in this appeal as the same are not controverted. In the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the impugned order is correct legal and does not suffer from any infirmity - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved: Non-eligibility for exemption under Notification 203/92-Cus. for imports made against DEEC licence due to failure to produce proof of non-availment or reversal of Modvat credit as per DEEC Scheme.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 99/2005 VL(ACC), dated 17-10-2005. The issue at hand revolved around the non-eligibility of the respondent to avail exemption under Notification 203/92-Cus. for imports made against DEEC licence. The denial was based on the respondent's failure to provide evidence regarding the non-availment of Modvat credit or the reversal of Modvat credit as required by the DEEC Scheme.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority had allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee. The authority considered the certificate from the Chartered Accountant (C.A.) stating the non-availment of Modvat credit for the imported goods against a specific bill of entry. Additionally, the original certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise was also submitted. The first appellate authority accepted the appeal based on these submissions, emphasizing compliance with the conditions of the notification. The authority allowed the department to verify the accuracy of the C.A.'s certificate. The Tribunal observed that the department did not contest these findings and that there was no information provided on the verification process.

In light of the reliance placed by the first appellate authority on the certificates provided by the C.A. and the Superintendent, and the absence of any challenge from the department, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis for the appeal. The Tribunal found the impugned order to be correct, legally sound, and free from any defects. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the decision of the first appellate authority. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with the requirements of the DEEC Scheme and providing necessary documentation to support claims for exemption under relevant notifications.