2000 (6) TMI 296 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal regarding denial of deemed credit under Modvat scheme on waste and scrap of steel.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal No. E/834/99
- The appeal pertains to the denial of deemed credit under the Modvat scheme on waste and scrap of steel for the period from 31-3-86 to 17-8-86.
- The Order-in-Appeal upheld the denial of deemed credit based on the exemption of waste and scrap of steel under Notification No. 208/83 dated 1-8-83.
- The appellant argued that the waste and scrap in question fell under sub-heading 7203.20, not 7203.10 exempted by the notification.
- The appellant contended that the department failed to prove that the goods were clearly non-duty paid, as required for denying deemed credit.
- The Tribunal found that the notification did not cover waste and scrap of steel falling under 7203.20, contrary to the department's argument.
- The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the department to show that goods are clearly non-duty paid for disallowing deemed Modvat credit.
- Relying on previous tribunal decisions, the Tribunal set aside the order impugned and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

Issue 2: Appeal No. E/1835/99
- This appeal also involved the denial of deemed credit under Rule 57H for waste and scrap of steel.
- The denial was based on the same grounds as in the previous appeal, citing the exemption under Notification 208/83.
- The appellant argued that the denial was unfounded as the waste and scrap of steel did not fall under the exempted category.
- The Tribunal found that the denial of deemed Modvat credit was not justified as the goods were not clearly recognisable as non-duty paid.
- The Tribunal applied the same reasoning as in the previous appeal, set aside the order impugned, and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

Conclusion:
Both appeals were allowed by the Tribunal, as it was established that the denial of deemed credit on waste and scrap of steel under the Modvat scheme was not justified. The burden of proof to show that the goods were clearly non-duty paid was not met by the department, leading to the setting aside of the orders and granting of consequential relief in accordance with the law.