1999 (8) TMI 148 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Availability of deemed credit of duty on inputs under a specific Government Order.

Analysis:
The case involves a Revenue appeal against an Order-in-Appeal regarding the availability of deemed credit of duty on inputs as per a Government Order. The respondents, engaged in manufacturing tractor parts, claimed deemed credit on inputs amounting to Rs. 3482.46. The Department contended that since the inputs lacked evidence of duty payment, deemed credit was inadmissible. The Assistant Collector upheld the demand, but the Collector (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondents, citing a precedent where goods bought from the open market were treated as duty paid.

When the respondents failed to appear despite notice, the tribunal proceeded with the hearing. The Revenue argued that the inputs were exempted under a specific notification, making them recognizable as non-duty paid. They also contended that the onus was on the assessee to prove duty payment for claiming deemed credit. Legal references were made to support this argument, including a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The tribunal considered the submissions and referenced previous judgments. It noted that the initial burden lies on the manufacturer to assert duty payment, with the Revenue having the option to contest. In this case, the respondents claimed benefits under a specific Government Order, and their assertion that goods were bought from the open market was crucial. The tribunal clarified that the term 'charged to nil rate of duty' in the Government Order had a specific meaning, allowing deemed credit for inputs wholly exempt from duty. Even if some inputs were covered by a different notification, additional evidence was required to prove non-duty payment. Since the respondents had already claimed the non-duty paid status of the goods, deemed credit could not be denied.

In conclusion, the tribunal found no merit in the Revenue appeal and rejected it, affirming the availability of deemed credit for the respondents based on the specific circumstances and legal interpretations presented during the proceedings.