1988 (6) TMI 167 - AT - Central Excise

Admissibility of MODVAT Credit on Steel Sheets Purchased: Burden of Proof on Department

COLLECTOR OF CE. Versus KAPSONS ELECTRO STAMPINGS

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, ruled on the admissibility of MODVAT credit on steel sheets purchased from the open market. The Tribunal held ... Modvat - M.S. Sheets Issues involved: Determination of admissibility of MODVAT credit on steel sheets purchased from the open market based on Notification 208/83 and Government of India's order dated 7-4-1986.Summary:The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the question of whether MODVAT credit taken by the respondents on steel sheets purchased from the open market is permissible. The department argued that the credit is inadmissible as the M.S. sheets are wholly exempted from duty under Notification 208/83, and thus, the credit should not be allowed. On the other hand, the respondent company contended that the conditions for full exemption under the notification were not met, and the department failed to provide evidence regarding the duty status of the purchased M.S. sheets.To address the controversy, the relevant rules, Government of India's order, and Notification 208/83 were examined. Rule 57-G outlines the procedure for taking credit of duty paid on specified inputs, with provisions for waiving the requirement of producing documents evidencing duty payment under certain circumstances. The Central Government directed that steel sheets meeting specified criteria may be deemed to have paid duty, allowing credit without production of duty payment documents.The appellant-Collector's main argument for denying deemed credit was that the M.S. sheets were fully exempted under Notification 208/83, making them non-duty paid. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the exemption only applies if certain conditions are met, which the department failed to prove in this case. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof regarding the duty status of the M.S. sheets lies with the department, and mere reliance on the notification is insufficient without supporting evidence.In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals and confirmed the impugned order, rejecting the appeals. Cross-objections were deemed not maintainable as the respondent had obtained full relief through the impugned order.