2004 (1) TMI 578 - AT - Central Excise

Court Upholds Modvat Credit Claim Based on Supplier Invoices

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT Versus MUZAFFARNAGAR PIPE INDUSTRIES

The appeal by the Revenue against the denial of deemed Modvat credits and penalty imposition was rejected. The High Court ruled in favor of the ... Cenvat/Modvat - Deemed credit Issues:1. Denial of deemed Modvat credits and imposition of penalty by the original authority.2. Eligibility for deemed Modvat credit based on invoices from input-suppliers under Compounded Levy Scheme.3. Interpretation of Notification No. 58/97-C.E. regarding conditions for claiming Modvat credit.Issue 1: Denial of deemed Modvat credits and penalty impositionThe original authority denied deemed Modvat credits totaling Rs. 5,59,280 to the respondents and imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000. This denial was based on the ground that the input-supplier did not fully discharge duty liability for the inputs on which the deemed credits were claimed. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal against the original authority's decision, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue.Issue 2: Eligibility for deemed Modvat credit based on invoicesThe deemed credits were claimed by the respondents based on invoices issued by input-manufacturers operating under the Compounded Levy Scheme of Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, along with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The invoices included declarations that duty liability had been discharged under the relevant rules. The key question was whether the respondents needed to fulfill additional requirements beyond the supplier's declaration to qualify for deemed Modvat credit. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana's decision in the case of Vikas Pipe v. CCE, Chandigarh clarified this issue. The High Court held that the Tribunal's view, which required evidence of duty payment by the supplier, was incorrect. The Court emphasized that as per the notification, the assessee did not need to prove the supplier's duty discharge, and hence, the Tribunal erred in disallowing the Modvat credit. Following this ruling, it was concluded that the respondents were entitled to the deemed Modvat credit based on the invoices, as upheld by the lower appellate authority.Issue 3: Interpretation of Notification No. 58/97-C.E.The interpretation of Notification No. 58/97-C.E. was crucial in determining the conditions for claiming Modvat credit. The High Court's ruling emphasized that the notification did not mandate the assessee to provide evidence of the supplier's duty discharge, contrary to the Tribunal's view. This clarification supported the respondents' right to avail deemed Modvat credit based on the invoices alone. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, affirming the respondents' entitlement to the Modvat credit as determined by the lower appellate authority.The judgment addressed the issues of denial of deemed Modvat credits, eligibility criteria based on supplier invoices, and the interpretation of Notification No. 58/97-C.E. The decision favored the respondents, emphasizing that the supplier's declaration sufficed for claiming Modvat credit, without the need for additional proof of duty discharge. This detailed analysis provided clarity on the legal aspects surrounding the case, ensuring a fair and just outcome in line with established legal principles and precedents.