2003 (10) TMI 242

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....110/-) had been taken on the basis of invoice No. 4115, dated 11-3-98 issued by M/s. Dhiman Industries Ltd. The 'Sahara' invoice carried a declaration thus : "duty debited under Rule 96ZP". The corresponding declaration in the 'Dhiman' invoice was thus : "duty liability to be discharged under Rule 96ZP(3)". Before the adjudicating authority, the appellants produced two other documents. In relation to the credit taken under the 'Dhiman' invoice, they produced a certificate of M/s. Dhiman Industries Ltd., which was to the effect that, in respect of the goods sold to the appellants in the month of March 1998, Excise duty had been deposited. In relation to the credit taken under the 'Sahara' invoice, the appellants produced a certificate, dated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....latedly for the relevant period. This decision of the lower appellate authority is challenged on the strength of Tribunal's decision in Bhagwati Steels Industries v. CCE [2002 (148) E.L.T. 897]. Ld. DR reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. I have carefully examined the submissions. The notification prescribed, inter alia, that the input-manufacturer working under the Compounded Levy Scheme should declare on the face of his invoice that he had discharged duty liability in respect of the goods covered thereunder. As far as the invoice of M/s. Sahara Steel Rolling Mills is concerned, such a declaration is forthcoming. The appellants also produced additional evidence in the form of Central Excise Range Supdt.'s certificate....