Deemed Modvat credit under conditional exemption turns on supplier verification, with fresh enquiry required where facts are incomplete.

Deemed Modvat credit on aluminium alloy ingots was treated as inadmissible where the supplier had satisfied the conditional exemption under Notification No. 180/88, because the inputs were then properly regarded as non-duty paid. For supplies from another source, credit could not be denied without enquiry into whether the supplier actually met the exemption condition; absent that factual verification, fresh determination was required. The demand was also corrected for double inclusion and confined to the normal six-month limitation period, as the record did not support invocation of the extended period under Rule 57-I.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether deemed Modvat credit on aluminium alloy ingots received from GEFL was admissible when the inputs were procured under a conditional exemption notification. (ii) Whether deemed Modvat credit on supplies from SRT could be denied without enquiry into whether the supplier satisfied the exemption condition. (iii) Whether the extended period under Rule 57-I could be invoked and whether the demand required recomputation for double inclusion.

Issue (i): Whether deemed Modvat credit on aluminium alloy ingots received from GEFL was admissible when the inputs were procured under a conditional exemption notification.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 180/88 applied only to unwrought aluminium manufactured from duty-paid Chapter 76 goods. On the materials available, GEFL was shown to be an alloyer who had procured duty-paid aluminium for its output, and the record indicated satisfaction of the exemption condition. Once that condition was established, the inputs obtained from GEFL were clearly recognisable as non-duty paid and were not entitled to deemed credit.

Conclusion: Deemed Modvat credit on inputs from GEFL was rightly denied.

Issue (ii): Whether deemed Modvat credit on supplies from SRT could be denied without enquiry into whether the supplier satisfied the exemption condition.

Analysis: In the case of SRT, no comparable enquiry was shown to have been made. The record did not clarify whether SRT was an alloyer or only a trader, and the factual basis necessary to conclude that the inputs were clearly non-duty paid was absent. Since eligibility under a conditional exemption depends on verification of the condition, further factual enquiry was required.

Conclusion: The matter relating to supplies from SRT was remanded for fresh enquiry and redetermination.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period under Rule 57-I could be invoked and whether the demand required recomputation for double inclusion.

Analysis: The demand showed overlapping between the show cause notices, and credit taken during February 1990 had been demanded twice. The demand therefore required correction. On limitation, the facts did not justify invocation of the longer period, and the demand was confined to the normal period of six months.

Conclusion: The demand had to be reduced for double inclusion and was restricted to the normal limitation period.

Final Conclusion: The decision sustained denial of deemed credit on the GEFL inputs, required fresh enquiry for the SRT supplies, and confined the duty demand to the normal period after correcting the overlapping amount.

Ratio Decidendi: In claims for deemed Modvat credit under a conditional exemption, the Revenue must establish by enquiry that the exemption condition was satisfied before treating the inputs as clearly non-duty paid; absence of such enquiry requires fresh determination, and overlapping demand cannot be sustained.

---