2008 (4) TMI 43 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court affirms Tribunal's ruling on MODVAT credit dispute, dismisses Revenue's appeal.

The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in a case concerning MODVAT credit on imported inputs. The Court emphasized the Revenue's burden to prove ... Import under advance licence - Revenue alleged that assessee had availed credit on the material which it could not avail – Assessee took stand that it had not availed credit on the imported inputs and they had availed credit only on the inputs purchased indigenously – no proof of availment – no verification done by dept. in impugned aspect - onus to prove availment is on Revenue - in the absence of any such proof, demand raised by issuing SCN cannot be sustained – revenue appeal dismissed Issues:1. Availing of MODVAT credit on imported inputs.2. Duty demanded by Revenue based on MODVAT credit availed.3. Tribunal's decision setting aside the duty demand.4. Appeal filed by Revenue challenging Tribunal's decision.Analysis:1. The case involved the issue of whether the assessee had availed MODVAT credit on imported inputs under the Advance Licence Scheme. The Revenue alleged that the assessee had availed MODVAT credit on materials not eligible under the relevant notification. The assessee contended that it had only claimed MODVAT credit on inputs purchased domestically, not on imported inputs.2. The Revenue issued show cause notices demanding customs duty amounting to Rs. 20,42,257.90 based on the alleged availing of MODVAT credit. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demanded, but the assessee challenged this decision before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and lack of evidence from the Revenue, concluded that the demand raised was unjustified and set aside the order of the adjudicating authority.3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of proof that the assessee had availed MODVAT credit on imported inputs. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide evidence supporting their claim, and in the absence of such proof, the demand could not be sustained. The Tribunal accepted the appeal and ruled in favor of the assessee.4. The Revenue, dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the onus to prove the availing of MODVAT credit was on the Revenue. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeals, stating that there was no error in the Tribunal's order. The parties were left to bear their own costs, bringing the legal proceedings to a close.