TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scharge their duty liability at the end of the month in which the goods stand cleared by the input supplier and duty liability in respect of each and every clearance was not being determined and reflected in the invoices - appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellants to take input credit - 3019 of 2009(SM) - 72/2012-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 19-1-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. Present for the Appellant Ms. Pooja Malhotra, Adv. Present for Respondent Shri Anil Khanna, DR Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Steel Tubes Pipes falling under Chapter-73 of Central Excise Tariff Act. During the period from December, 1997 to January, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the manufacturer of the said inputs under the cover of an invoice declaring that the appropriate duty of excise has been paid on such inputs under the provisions of Section 3A of the said Act. 4. As per the Revenue, in as much as the invoices in question accompanying the inputs did not declare that the appropriate duty of excise has been paid on the inputs under the provisions of Section 3A of the said act, the benefit of the deemed Modvat credit was not available to the appellants. While dealing with the above contention, Commissioner(Appeals) has observed as under, in case remarks given on the invoices are concerned. Para 5.2 of his order is being reproduced below :- 5.2 As per the relevant documents the details and remarks giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his duty liability and it was on the basis of this report of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of the supplier that the demand was raised/confirmed against the appellants. 5. It is seen from the above observation made by the Commissioner(Appeals) that though he intended to deny the benefit only in respect of invoices appearing at Sr.No.3,4 and 5 involving Modvat credit of Rs.1,13,866/-, he rejected the appeal in its totality. 6. In any case, I find that the Notification in question has been the subject matter of various decisions of the Tribunal as also of the Hon ble High Court. By taking note of the High Court s decision in the case of Vikas Pipe vs. Commissioner reported 2003(158)ELT680(P H) as also of another decision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arh vs. L.D.Steel Corporation reported in 2005(191)E.L.T.708(Tri. - Del.). It stands held in the said judgements in as much as the declaration on the invoices was duty liability to be discharged, it cannot be held that the duty liability was actually discharged . In such a case, the Tribunal held that no credit was available to the input receiver. As such by following the said decisions, the credit stands denied by Commissioner(Appeals). 10. On going through the Notification, I find that in terms of para 2 of the Notification, the duty of excise shall be deemed to have been paid on the inputs declared in the Notification and the same shall be equivalent to the amount calculated @ 12% of the price, as declared by the manufacturer, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion duty liability discharged as per Rule 96ZP(3) and other invoices where the declaration to the effect duty liability to be discharged under Rule 96ZP(3) , refers to the same set of facts and circumstances. In both the cases, duty liability is required to be discharged at the end of the month, as the duty liability cannot be discharged at the time of actual clearance of the inputs. As such in my views, the use of different expressions in the invoices by the input manufacturer will not make much difference. The duty liability in both the cases has to be discharged under the Compounded Levy Scheme after the month in which the goods stand cleared by the input supplier. In such a scenario, the ratio of the law declared by the Hon ble High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|