2001 (8) TMI 562 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of deemed Modvat credit due to lack of certificate from Range Officer.
2. Admissibility of deemed Modvat credit under Notf. No. 58/97-C.E.
3. Compliance with provisions of Notf. No. 58/97-C.E. for Modvat credit.

Issue 1: Denial of deemed Modvat credit due to lack of certificate from Range Officer
In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of deemed Modvat credit to the appellants as they failed to produce a certificate from the Range Officer of the supplier confirming the payment of Central Excise (CE) duty on the inputs purchased. The appellants argued that they provided copies of PLA register and TR-6 challans of the supplier, but the records did not clearly indicate whether the CE duty had been paid. The absence of this information led to the denial of deemed Modvat credit. The appellants challenged this decision by filing an appeal.

Issue 2: Admissibility of deemed Modvat credit under Notf. No. 58/97-C.E.
The department alleged that deemed Modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97-C.E. was not admissible to the appellants because the credit was taken on inputs that had not incurred Central Excise duty. The appellants contended that the notification applied to inputs received directly from the manufacturer of the final products, accompanied by an invoice declaring the payment of excise duty. The appellants argued that they were paying duty under Rule 96ZP(3) and provided evidence such as PLA copies and TR-6 challans to support their claim that duty had been paid on the inputs.

Issue 3: Compliance with provisions of Notf. No. 58/97-C.E. for Modvat credit
The Advocate for the appellants highlighted that the disputed invoice contained an endorsement stating "Duty liability to be discharged under Rule 96ZP(3)," and they had submitted copies of PLA and TR-6 challans showing periodic payment of duty. The Departmental Representative emphasized the clear language of the notification requiring specific declarations in the invoice and certification from the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise. After considering both arguments, the Tribunal found that the appellants had complied with the requirements of Notification No. 58/97 by providing the necessary declarations and evidence of duty payment. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, directing that any consequential relief be granted to the appellants as per the law.