Modvat credit on foundry fluxes and deemed credit cannot be denied on mere presumption of exempt clearance.

Foundry fluxes used in preparing moulds were treated as inputs used in relation to manufacture, so Modvat credit under Rule 57A was admissible. Deemed Modvat credit could not be denied on a bare presumption that the inputs were cleared under exemption; where the exemption was conditional, the Revenue had to prove actual clearance under the notification and satisfaction of its conditions, which was not shown. A limited direction to verify duplicate gate passes against the originals before granting credit was considered fair and required no interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether foundry fluxes used in preparing moulds were eligible inputs for Modvat credit under Rule 57A; (ii) Whether deemed Modvat credit could be denied merely because the inputs were presumed to have been cleared under exemption without enquiry into whether the exemption conditions were fulfilled; (iii) Whether the direction to verify duplicate gate passes against originals before granting credit called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether foundry fluxes used in preparing moulds were eligible inputs for Modvat credit under Rule 57A.

Analysis: Chemicals or resin used in the sand mixture for producing sand moulds were treated as inputs used in relation to manufacture of the final product. The same principle applied to foundry fluxes used in the preparation of moulds for manufacture of valves and cocks.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit on foundry fluxes was not sustainable and the credit was admissible.

Issue (ii): Whether deemed Modvat credit could be denied merely because the inputs were presumed to have been cleared under exemption without enquiry into whether the exemption conditions were fulfilled.

Analysis: The mere existence of an exemption notification was held insufficient to treat the inputs as clearly non-duty paid. Where the exemption was conditional, the Revenue had to establish that the inputs were in fact cleared under the notification on fulfilment of its conditions. No such factual foundation was shown.

Conclusion: The denial of deemed credit was unsustainable and the credit could not be refused on the basis of a bare presumption.

Issue (iii): Whether the direction to verify duplicate gate passes against originals before granting credit called for interference.

Analysis: The direction was limited to comparison of the duplicate gate passes with the originals and grant of credit only if the particulars tallied. It was a fair and reasonable procedural direction on the facts.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with that direction.

Final Conclusion: The revenue appeals failed in substance, and the assessee retained Modvat credit on the disputed inputs and on deemed credit, subject to verification of the gate pass particulars.

Ratio Decidendi: For Modvat deemed credit, denial cannot rest on a presumption of duty-free clearance; the Revenue must establish that the inputs were actually cleared under a conditional exemption and that its conditions were satisfied.

---