9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the case, the following substantial question of law arises from the order of the Appellate Tribunal for consideration of this Court:- "Whether the manufacturer of final products is entitled to deemed credit under Notification 58/97-CE dated 30.8.1997 when the manufacturer-supplier of inputs has not paid Central Excise duty and given a wrong certificate/no certificate on the body of invoices about duty discharged under Rule 96ZP of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944?" 2. In the present case, the respondent (assessee) is engaged in the manufacture of excisable products. It had availed deemed modvat credit during the period October, 1998 to March, 1999, April, 1999 to June, 1999 and October, 1999 to December, 1999 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of deemed modvat credit to the appellants on the ground that the manufacturer of inputs had not discharged the full duty liability. I observe that in terms of provisions of notification no.58/97-CE dated 30.08.97 credit of deemed duty paid by manufacturer under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is available subject to the condition that the inputs are received directly from the factory of manufacturer under cover of an invoice declaring there that the appropriate duty of excise has been paid on such inputs under the provisions of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944. There is no dispute about receipt of inputs directly from the factory of manufacturers in all the cases involved in present proceedings. I observe that all the inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide its order dated 29.12.2006, the CESTAT dismissed the appeal of the Department while observing as under:- "In this case, the respondents availed deemed credit under Notification no.58/97-CE(NT) dated 30.8.97 on the strength of invoices issued by the manufacturer of inputs. The contention of Revenue is that on verification, it was found that input manufacturer had not discharged full duty liability. That Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the decision of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Vikas Pipes Vs. CCE Chandigarh ( 2003 (158) ELT 680) and held that respondent is entitled for deemed credit. The contention of the Revenue is that against the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court, the appeal has been filed. The respondent submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
