Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
L.S.R. Ispat Ltd. vs Cce on 5 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(115)ECR291(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. Heard both sides.
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of E.R.W. Pipes and were availing the benefit of deemed credit under Notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.8.1997 in respect of M.s. Bars and Strips.
4. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant denying the benefit of deemed credit on the ground that the manufacturer of the inputs have not discharged their full duty liability though they had given certificate on the invoice that the duty have been discharged under Rule 96ZP(3).
5. The Adjudicating authority denied the benefit of deemed credit. The appellant filed appeal and the same was dismissed.
6. The contention of the appellant is that they were taking deemed credit on the invoices issued by the manufacturer where the declaration was made that duty has been discharged and this issue came before Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Vikas Pipe v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II and the Hon'ble High Court held that where the declaration was made regarding discharge of duty, the deemed credit cannot be denied to the manufacture on the ground that manufacturer of the inputs had not discharged the duty liability under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act.
7. I find the issue involved in this appeal is convered by the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case Vikas Pipe v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II (supra). Hon'ble High Court held as under:
In that case the Tribunal had taken a contrary view and this Court had upheld the same holding that the deemed Modvat credit can be claimed in term., of Notification No. 58/97 and that the only requirement of the notification is that the assessee should produce the invoices covering the goods in which the manufacturer should give a declaration that the manufacturer had suffered excise duty. In the case before us the show cause notice issued to the assessee itself points out that the suppliers have been declaring on these invoices that the inputs suffered excise duty but the Tribunal obviously went wrong in holding that since excise duty had in fact not been paid by the supplier the assessee was not entitled to claim Modvat benefit. Since there is no requirement in the notification that the assessce has to lead evidence to show that the supplier had discharged its excise duty liability, we arc clearly of the view that the Tribunal was in error in disallowing the Modvat credit to the assessce. Consequently, the aforesaid question which arises from the order of Tribunal answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department holding that the assessee in the circumstances of the present ease is entitled to the benefit of MODVAT credit. The petition stands disposed of as above.
8. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble High Court the impugned order is setaside and the appeal is allowed.