2003 (10) TMI 59 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves whether the Tribunal was correct in denying the benefit of Modvat credit to the assessee based on the supplier's failure to pay excise duty, despite the assessee being entitled to the credit as per Notification No. 58/97.

Summary:

1. Background and Disputed Modvat Credit:
The case involved M/s. Vikas Pipes, engaged in manufacturing pipes and tubes, purchasing inputs from M/s. Rathi Steels under the Compound Levy Scheme. The supplier certified payment of excise duty on invoices, but it was later found that the supplier had not paid the due excise duty. Consequently, the adjudicating authority disallowed deemed Modvat credit of Rs. 1,73,669 to the assessee, a decision upheld by the Commissioner and the Tribunal.

2. Legal Proceedings and Tribunal's Decision:
The assessee filed a petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, seeking a mandamus to refer the question of law to the High Court. However, the High Court had already decided a similar case in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the requirement for claiming Modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97 was the production of invoices with a declaration of excise duty payment by the manufacturer, not a certificate from the Range Officer.

3. High Court's Decision and Rationale:
The High Court upheld the assessee's entitlement to Modvat credit, emphasizing that the Tribunal erred in denying the credit based on the supplier's failure to pay excise duty. The Court clarified that the notification did not necessitate the assessee to prove the supplier's excise duty payment, as long as the invoices with the manufacturer's declaration were provided. Therefore, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, granting the benefit of Modvat credit and disposing of the petition accordingly.

This judgment reaffirms the importance of adhering to the specific requirements outlined in notifications for claiming benefits such as Modvat credit, emphasizing the significance of proper documentation over additional evidentiary burdens on the assessee.