Modvat credit on duty-payment certificate allowed in principle; disclosed returns also defeated suppression and limitation challenge.

Modvat credit was held admissible where the supplier's duty payment had been regularised and the assessee produced a certificate from the officer-in-charge of the supplier's factory, subject to verification of receipt and utilisation of the inputs in the final product from the assessee's records. The demand was also treated as time-barred because the credit was openly reflected in RT 12 returns and RG 23A Part II records, leaving no basis to allege suppression of facts for extended limitation. On that footing, the demand and penalty were set aside, while the credit was allowed in principle subject to verification.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Modvat credit could be taken on the strength of a certificate of duty payment issued by the officer-in-charge of the supplier's factory under the relevant Central Excise Rules; and (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression of facts.

Issue (i): whether Modvat credit could be taken on the strength of a certificate of duty payment issued by the officer-in-charge of the supplier's factory under the relevant Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The credit was claimed after the supplier's duty liability had been regularised and the appellants had received a certificate of payment of duty from the officer-in-charge of the supplier's factory. The Tribunal followed the Larger Bench view that such credit was admissible under the Modvat scheme, subject to verification of receipt of inputs and their utilisation in the final product on the basis of the assessee's records.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to take Modvat credit in principle, subject to verification by the Central Excise Officer of receipt and utilisation of the inputs.

Issue (ii): whether the demand was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The credit was taken openly and reflected in the monthly RT 12 returns along with the relevant RG 23A Part II records. On those facts, there was no basis to infer suppression of facts. The notice was held to have been issued beyond both the normal limitation period and, for part of the period, even the extended period.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on both the admissibility of Modvat credit and the plea of limitation, and the demand and penalty were set aside while the credit was allowed in principle subject to verification.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit supported by a valid duty-payment certificate is admissible under the scheme, subject to verification of receipt and utilisation of inputs, and disclosure in statutory returns negates suppression for the purpose of extended limitation.

---