1997 (9) TMI 345 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of Stay Petition due to payment made.
2. Denial of Modvat credit based on attested photocopy of Gate Pass.
3. Allegation of goods not being duty paid or utilized in final product.
4. Remand for fresh adjudication based on evidence.

Issue 1: Dismissal of Stay Petition
The appellant's representative, Shri K.K. Banerjee, informed the tribunal that the demanded amount in the impugned order had been paid, rendering the Stay Petition moot. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the Stay Petition.

Issue 2: Denial of Modvat Credit
The appellant received zinc ingots from a godown against a Gate Pass with an endorsement from Hindustan Zinc Ltd. The appellant claimed Modvat credit based on an attested photocopy of the Gate Pass, endorsed by HZL. Lower authorities denied the credit, stating it cannot be allowed on an attested photocopy. The appellant argued that without allegations of non-duty payment or misuse, denial of Modvat credit was unjustified, citing a tribunal's judgment in a similar case.

Issue 3: Allegation of Duty Payment
The JDR contended that the attested photocopy lacked the consignee's name, raising doubts on how the appellant obtained the goods. He argued that the duty paid status and proper utilization in the final product needed verification, referencing previous tribunal judgments. The tribunal noted the absence of allegations against duty payment or utilization but agreed that these points were overlooked by lower authorities. It emphasized the need for the appellant to establish the duty paid status of the goods through evidence beyond the attested photocopy.

Issue 4: Remand for Fresh Adjudication
The tribunal acknowledged the misplaced original Gate Pass and endorsed attested photocopy as the basis for receiving goods. It directed the appellant to provide evidence from HZL to prove the duty paid status of the goods. Emphasizing the necessity for collateral evidence beyond the attested photocopy, the tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority for fresh adjudication based on the evidence to be presented by the appellant. The appeal was allowed by remand for further verification and consideration.