2011 (11) TMI 186 - AT - Customs

Import of goods duty free under the value based advance Licensing Scheme in terms of Notification No.203/92-Cus - Condition for Non-availment of input stage credit under Rule 57A for the goods imported for manufacture of exported goods Merchant manufacturer - onus cast on assessee to prove demand imposed denying exemption under Notification No.203/92 - Held that - Since appellants are only the merchant manufacturer, therefore availment of Cenvat credit by them does not arise further, they have produced a certificate issued by the Divisional Deputy Commissioner certifying them as merchant manufacturer. Thus, appellant have discharged their onus. It is also held that the burden to prove that the appellants have availed input stage credit is on Revenue. Since Revenue has not produced any such documentary evidence therefore, the order is set aside. Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order under Notification No.203/92-Cus regarding duty-free import under value-based advance Licensing Scheme.

Analysis:
The appellants contested an order concerning the duty-free import of goods under the value-based advance Licensing Scheme. They were merchant manufacturers who exported goods manufactured by a supporting manufacturer. A show-cause notice alleged the appellants availed input stage credit for imported goods contrary to the scheme's provisions. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand, denying the exemption and imposing a penalty. The appellant argued they were not entitled to Cenvat credit as merchant manufacturers, citing certificates from authorities. They emphasized the burden of proof on the Revenue, referencing a previous Tribunal ruling.

The Revenue opposed the appellant's contentions, asserting the failure to prove non-availment of input stage credit and undisclosed supporting manufacturer details. They supported the original order's findings.

The Tribunal noted the appellant's merchant manufacturer status was confirmed by a certificate. The supporting manufacturer operated under a relevant notification, exempting them from Central Excise registration. The appellant fulfilled their burden of proving non-availment of input stage credit. Citing precedent, the Tribunal emphasized the Revenue's failure to provide evidence of credit availed by the appellants or the supporting manufacturer. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.