TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n issue is involved, all these appeals are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The respondents in these appeals were engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were availing the facility of Modvat credit on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules during the respective periods of dispute. They took Modvat credit of the duty paid on the defective/rejected ingots received as inputs for the manufacture of alloy/non-alloy steel ingots (final products). They did so without filing D-3 declaration with the jurisdictional Central Excise Range Officers as required under Trade Notice No. 20/CE/93, dated 29-10-1993 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court's ruling squarely covers the instant case of non-fulfilment of the requirements of the Trade Notice. The ld. DR Shri A.K. Jain reiterates the grounds of appeals and submits that the Trade Notice was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh in exercise of his powers under Rule 233 in order to obviate any chance of commission of fraud and of introduction of administrative inconvenience in matters relating to availment, by assessees, of the Modvat benefit on the particular inputs. According to him, in such circumstances, non-compliance with the conditions laid down under the Trade Notice should be visited with penal consequences, apart from denial of Modvat credit as per the ruling of the Honourable Supreme Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely covered in favour of the assessees by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Didar Steel Complex (supra) followed by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. J.S. Khalsa Steels Pvt. Ltd. as per Final Order No. A/1011/99-NB (DB), dated 1-11-1999. Ld. Counsel have also pointed out that, to the best of their knowledge, the Department has not appealed against the Tribunal's decision in the case of Didar Steel Complex and that their (Department's) reference application in the said case was rejected by the Tribunal as per the order reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 691 (T). Counsel have also pointed out that the subject Trade Notice stipulated certain conditions which were in vogue when the proforma credit scheme (precursor of the M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. This aspect of the matter has already been considered by the Tribunal (Single Member Bench) in the case of Didar Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which has been followed in a similar case by the Tribunal (Two Member Bench) in the case of C.C.E v. J.S. Khalsa Steel Pvt. Ltd (supra). I would follow the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in Didar Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd. as followed in J.S. Khalsa Steel Pvt. Ltd. 7. The Honourable Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd. cited by the ld. DR has been considered. That ruling is applicable to a situation where there is a possibility of fraud or administrative inconvenience being occasioned by the assessees conduct in the context of availment of Modvat credit. It is noted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
