1999 (10) TMI 327 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Burden of proof in cases of conditional exemption under Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh filed a reference application under Section 35 G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking clarification on the burden of proof regarding duty-paid goods in cases of conditional exemption. The reference application stemmed from a previous Final Order where the Tribunal allowed an appeal by M/s. Oswal Alloys against the denial of Modvat credit by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The Tribunal held that in cases of conditional exemption, it is the Department's responsibility to prove that the goods are non-duty paid, especially when the assessee claims the goods fall under the category of duty-paid items.

The Commissioner argued that the Tribunal's reliance on certain decisions, including M/s. Nehar International Ltd. v. C.C.E. and Mahabir Spinning Mills v. C.C.E., was not accepted by the Department. Additionally, the Commissioner highlighted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had admitted an appeal against a previous Tribunal decision in the case of M/s. Prince Valve Industries. The Department contended that the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the Revenue and requested the High Court to address this legal issue.

However, the Advocate for the respondents pointed out that the Tribunal's consistent view, as established in the Larger Bench decision in Machine Builders case, is that in cases of conditional exemptions, the onus to prove the non-duty-paid status of goods lies with the Department. The Advocate argued that the legal point was settled and there was no need for further reference to the High Court.

Upon considering the arguments, the Tribunal noted a previous rejection of a similar reference application in the case of M/s. Nehar International Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized that when dealing with conditional Notifications, the Department must prove that the goods are non-duty paid. As the issue raised in the current application mirrored the one in the previous case, the Tribunal concluded that no new legal point was at stake and rejected the Reference Application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Reference Application, affirming its stance that in cases of conditional exemptions, the burden of proof regarding the duty-paid status of goods lies with the Department, as established in previous decisions and consistent Tribunal rulings.