2002 (8) TMI 854

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... credit under Notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.8.97 but the credit was denied to them on the ground that the input-manufacturers had not declared in the invoices the duty-paid character of the inputs. He submits that the appellants were entitled to take the credit on the strength of the declaration of the Central Government contained in para 2 of the notification. Ld. counsel further points out that this issue has been settled by this Tribunal in favour of the assessee by the decision in Delhi Steel Industries vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2002 (48) RLT 753. Ld. counsel has also relied on Final Order No. 326/02/NB(DB) dated 11.3.2002 passed in Appeal No. E/2201/01/NB M/s. Shivaye Industries vs. CCE, Chandigarh [reported in 2002 (50) RLT 36 (CEGAT)]....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts, on the other hand, contained remarks reading "duty liability to be discharged under Rule 96ZP(3)". Such remarks made by the input-manufacturers in their invoices cannot, in any case, be taken as a declaration that the appropriate duty of excise has been paid on the inputs under Section 3A of the Act. The question which now arises for consideration is whether the deemed Modvat credit taken by the assessee on the strength of these invoices should be disallowed for want of the declaration contemplated under para-4 of the Notification. This question, in my view, requires to be considered in the light of the provisions of para-2 of the Notification, which reads as under:- "The Central Government further declares that the duty....