9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 1074X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The department issued show-cause notices to the appellants alleging that a part of the deemed credit taken by them on such inputs was not admissible for want of certificates from the Central Excise Range Officer (having jurisdiction over the input-manufacturers) to the effect that duty of excise on the inputs had been paid and that another part of the deemed credit was inadmissible on the ground that the inputs had been manufactured prior to 1-9-97, the date on which the input-manufacturers came under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The show-cause notices were contested by the appellants. In adjudication of the dispute, the Asstt. Commissioner disallowed the deemed credit of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The appellants had taken the Modvat credit of Rs. 33,255/- on the strength of two invoices dated 10-12-97 and 16-12-97 issued by M/s. Malhotra Industrial Corporation (in short, Malhotra) and one invoice dated 26-3-98 issued by M/s. Sandeep Steel & Agro Industries (in short, Sandeep). All the three invoices contained the declaration of discharge of duty liability under Rule 96ZP (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, satisfying the above condition of the notification. Furthermore, ld. Counsel submits a certificate from Malhotra certifying discharge of duty liability under Rule 96ZP (3) on their products (the appellant's inputs) for the period September, 1997 to May, 1999 had been produced bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y-paid nature of the inputs. In this manner, ld. DR would justify the denial of the Modvat credit of Rs. 33,255/-. As regards the credit of Rs. 23,800/-, the DR submits that the burden was on the assessee, who wanted to take the benefit of deemed Modvat credit, to establish that the conditions for the benefit had been duly complied with. The main condition was that the inputs had to be supplied by manufacturers operating under the Compounded Levy Scheme. Only if the inputs were manufactured after 1-9-97, they could be treated as having been manufactured and cleared under the Compounded Levy Scheme. Since the relevant invoices of Guru Arjan and Malhotra were issued in September, 1997, it was up to the appellants to establish that the inputs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andeep I have seen a noting: "duty liability discharged under Rule 96ZP (3)". It has been admitted by the ld. Counsel that this noting was made in the invoice by rubber-stamping. There being no signature of the manufacturer below this noting, I am not in a position to accept this noting as a valid declaration by the input-manufacturer. Insofar as the Malhotra invoices dated 10-12-97 and 16-12-97 are concerned, I observe that a noting which reads: "duty liability to be discharged" will not serve the purpose of "duty liability discharged". Therefore, these two invoices also did not provide a valid declaration as required by the notification. It was apparently on account of this deficiency that the authorities below insisted that a certificate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
