2004 (6) TMI 201 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against denial of certificate of payment of duty for capital goods removed without initial payment but subsequently paid.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against the denial of a certificate of payment of duty for capital goods removed without initial payment but later paid for by necessary debit entries in the PLA. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing steel forgings, availed Modvat facility for inputs and capital goods. The units removed Dies and Tools without department intimation or duty payment, leading to a demand for duty payment. The Range Officer directed duty discharge, which the units complied with through PLA debits. Subsequently, the units requested a certificate of payment, which was denied by the Range Officer citing Rule 57E conditions. The Assistant Commissioner upheld the denial, emphasizing non-assessment of goods initially and lack of duty credit by buyers. The appellants appealed, arguing bona fide belief in exemption and belated duty payment.

The main issue revolves around whether the appellants' request for a payment certificate is valid under the law. Rule 57S mandates duty payment and intimation for capital goods removal, which the appellants failed to comply with initially. The subsequent duty payment after departmental intervention does not warrant certificate issuance under Rule 57R(4) due to the absence of initial duty payment. The appellants' reliance on case laws like CCE v. SAIL and Larsen & Toubro Ltd. is misplaced as those cases involved different scenarios of duty payment and Modvat credit eligibility. The facts of this case do not align with the cited precedents, justifying the denial of the certificate request. The Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision, rejecting the appeal and maintaining the denial of the certificate of payment of duty for the capital goods removed without initial payment but subsequently paid.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the denial of the certificate request, emphasizing the non-compliance with duty payment and intimation requirements under Rule 57S. The appellants' belated duty payment did not entitle them to the certificate under Rule 57R(4), distinguishing this case from the cited precedents. The decision upheld the lower authority's ruling, dismissing the appeal against the denial of the certificate of payment of duty for the capital goods removed without initial payment but later paid for.