TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (J)]. This is a Revenue appeal filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-12-1992 passed by Collector (Appeals). The issue relates to the availability of deemed credit of duty on inputs in terms of the Government of India Order No. B/22/30/86-TRU, dated 7-4-1986. 2. The respondents who are engaged in the manufacture of parts and accessories of tractors falling under Chapter 8708 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacturing Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 543 the goods were to be treated as duty paid. 3. When the matter was called, no one was present for the respondents despite acknowledgement of notice of hearing. Since the matter is old, we are proceeding to dispose of the matter after hearing the ld. SDR. 4. Ld. SDR referred to the Grounds of Appeal and submitted that the inputs us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r decision of the Tribunal, namely, Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Bajaj Sons Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 230. 5. We have considered the submissions. We find that in Upper India Steel Mfg. and Engg. Co. case (supra) it was held that the initial burden is on the manufacturer to take a definite stand and it was then open to the Revenue to accept it or to contest it. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the respondents were covered under Notification No. 208/83, further evidence was necessary to prove that the inputs were non-duty paid. In the absence of any such proof, when the party has already taken a stand about non-duty paid character of the goods, deemed credit cannot be denied. 6. In the above view of the matter, we find no merit in this Revenue appeal and the same is rejected. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
