Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Acero Fabrica vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise on 13 May, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(191)ELT670(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to take deemed credit in terms of the Notification No. 58/97, when the appropriate duty on the inputs has not been paid by the manufacturer.
2. The said notification allows deemed credit in respect of the inputs purchased from the manufacturer of iron and steel, who have discharged duty liability under Section 3A (Compounded Levy) of the central Excise Act. The appellants claimed the deemed credit @ 12% in terms of the said notification. However, it was found that duty paid on the inputs was only to the extent of 13.388/- per month, which was not considered to be full discharge of duty. On the said ground, benefit of the deemed credit was proposed to be denied to the appellants.
3. I find that the issue is no more res-integra and has been settled by Vikas Pipes v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II, reported in 2003 (158 ELT 680 (P&H), wherein it was held that once there is a certificate about payment of duty under section 3A, it is not for the buyer of the inputs to go into the correctness or otherwise of amount of duty paid. This decision was subsequently followed by the Tribunal in a number of cases. Reference may be made to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Arvind Steel & Agro Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, reported in 2005 (99) ECC 44 (Tri.) laying down that the only requirement under the Notification was that the purchase must be directly from a manufacturer. who discharged duty under section 3A and that the invoice contained a declaration that appropriate duty has been discharged. The said declaration was there on all the invoices. If there is any short levy of duty against the inputs manufacturer, right course is to recovery the same from the inputs manufacturer and not to deny the benefit of the deemed credit notification to the receiver of the inputs, when he has satisfied all the conditions of the same.
4. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.