9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not contain the declaration as required by Notification No. 58/97-C.E. (N.T.) that duty liability had already been discharged. The Department, on this ground, proposed to disallow the Modvat credit and issued show-cause notices to the appellant. The proposal was contested by the party. At the adjudication stage, the party produced certificates from the Central Excise Range Officer having jurisdiction over two of the six input-manufacturers to the effect that duty liability on the goods had been discharged for the relevant period. On that basis, the adjudicating authority allowed the deemed Modvat credit taken by the appellants on the inputs supplied by those two manufacturers. The question which survived for consideration by the adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise Range Officer having jurisdiction over two of the four input-manufacturers, namely, M/s. Dhiman Industries Ltd., and M/s. Devta Steel Rolling Mills have been produced with the present appeal, and he prays for appropriate orders in relation to the deemed Modvat credit on the inputs supplied by the said two manufacturers. Counsel further submits that the appellants have satisfied all the essential requirements of Notification No. 58/97-C.E. (N.T.) and hence the modvat credit taken by them is not liable to be denied. He, therefore, prays for allowing the appeal. 5. Shri Atul Saxena, JDR, on the other hand, submits that the Notification expressly provides that the deemed Modvat credit provided thereunder can be availed on the strength o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f excise has been paid on such inputs under the provisions of Section 3(A) of the Central Excise Act. The question arising in the instant appeal is whether this requirement for deemed Modvat credit was fulfilled by the appellants. It is an admitted fact that none of the invoices issued by the aforenamed four manufacturers contained the declaration that appropriate duty of excise had been paid on the goods. Before the lower authorities, the party appears to have made some effort to make up this deficiency by producing either certificates from the input-manufacturers themselves or photocopies of TR-6 Challans under which the input-manufacturers had paid duty, for the relevant periods, on their goods. But the authorities were not satisfied. Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f TR-6 Challans whereunder duty was claimed to have been paid by the input-manufacturers. This evidence was rightly rejected by the lower authorities. In the absence of primary evidence of duty having been paid by the input-manufacturers, it was upto the Departmental authorities to make an inquiry as to whether appropriate duty of excise had been paid by the input-manufacturers for the relevant periods under the Compounded Levy Scheme. It was apparently as part of this inquiry that the authorities insisted on production of certificates from the Central Excise Range Officers having jurisdiction over the input-manufacturers certifying payment of duty on the inputs for the relevant periods. In those cases where such certificates were produced, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
