1997 (12) TMI 404

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... or on the assessee." 2. Arguing the Reference application, Shri D.K. Nayyar, the ld. JDR, submitted that the burden of proof was on the assessee in as much as the claim for deemed Modvat credit is filed by him. He submitted that it is the claimant who has to substantiate his claim and not the Department as held in the impugned order. He, therefore, prays that a question of law arises out of the order and, therefore, reference should be made to the High Court. 3. Heard the oral submissions of the ld. JDR, perused the written submissions made by the Respondents. We note that the Government of India in its order, dated 7-4-1986 used two sets of words, clearly recongisable as `being non-duty paid' and `charged to NIL rate of du....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nputs in respect of which duty has been paid but it may not be possible to posses such documentary evidence of payment of duty and manufacturers who use such inputs may be deprived of the benefit of Modvat scheme. Deemed Modvat credit is to give this class of users of such inputs that second proviso has been introduced. There is nothing in the proviso to Rule 57G(2) to show any intention to extend the benefit to those specified goods whose use as inputs in the manufacture of specified goods on which excise duty has actually not been paid. The purpose of the second proviso is to empower the Government to implement a deeming provision i.e. a provision to deem that the inputs are duty paid. The intention is not to deem that inputs which actual....