TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act, 1944. 2. Examined the records and heard both sides. 3. It appears from the record that the adjudicating authority had denied to the appellants deemed Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 58,629/- on the specified inputs received by them under cover of invoices issued by three manufacturers viz. M/s. Malhotra Industrial Corporation, M/s. Baba Balak Nath Steel Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Guru Arjan Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, who were manufacturers of iron and steel products, working under the aforementioned Compounded Levy Scheme. There were five invoices, which were issued on 23-1-98, 29-1-98, 9-2-98, 13-2-98 and 9-3-98. Barring the invoice dated 9-2-98, all the invoices contained a remark reading "duty liability to be discharged under Rule 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liability was not discharged, the credit was disallowed. In appellate stage, nothing new has been brought on record. Since the full and final central excise duty has not been discharged, on the inputs on which appellants have taken credit, the credit is not allowed. Order-in-Original is, therefore, upheld." The present appeal is against the above order. 4. Ld. Advocate, Shri J.P. Kaushik has reiterated the grounds of appeal. He submits that the requirement of payment of 'appropriate duty' by the input-suppliers, laid down in Para 4 of the notification, has to be interpreted as 'discharge of duty liability in terms of Rule 96ZP at the time of clearance of the goods' and not as full and final payment of duty as interpreted by the Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his certificate, as "duty paid under Rule 96ZP(3)". Counsel submits that the duty paid by the input-manufacturers under Rule 96ZP(3) should be taken as 'appropriate duty' within the meaning of this expression in Para 4 of the Notification. Accordingly, the appellants had satisfied the condition laid down in Para 4 ibid. He, therefore, urges that the deemed Modvat credit in question be allowed. Ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I have considered the submissions. The Modvat credit in question was taken on inputs specified in Notification No. 58/97-C.E., dated 30-8-97. It was taken on the strength of the invoices issued during the period January to March, 1998 by three manufacturers working under the Compoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contained any declaration by the input-manfacturers to the effect that duty liability had been discharged under Rule 96ZP(3)/Section 3A. These documents, 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 th....