UNITED SALES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXAMINED the records and heard both sides.

(2.) It appears from the records that the appellant had taken deemed modvat credit on inputs supplied by six different manufacturers of iron and steel products operating under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The credit was taken on the strength of invoices issued by those input -manufacturers. But those invoices did not contain the declaration as required by Notification No. 58/97 CE (NT) that duty liability had already been discharged. The Department, on this ground, proposed to disallow the modvat credit and issued show -cause notices to the appellant. The proposal was contested by the party. At the adjudication stage, the party produced certificates from the Central Excise Range Officer having jurisdiction over two of the six input -manufacturers to the effect that duty liability on the goods had been discharged for the relevant period. On that basis, the adjudicating authority allowed the deemed modvat credit taken by the appellants on the inputs supplied by those two manufacturers. The question which survived for consideration by the adjudicating authority was whether, on the inputs supplied by the remaining four manufacturers without necessary declaration in the invoices, deemed credit was admissible on the strength of photocopies of TR -6 Challans produced by the party as evidence of payment of duty at the manufacturers' end. The adjudicating authority decided against the assessee in respect of the deemed modvat credit taken on the inputs supplied by the four manufacturers. The aggrieved party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Asstt. Commissioner. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) IN the present appeal, the appellants have stated that photocopies of the TR -6 Challans evidencing payment of duty by the four input -manufacturers, namely, M/s. Dhiman Industries Ltd., M/s. Devta Steel Rolling Mills, M/s. Shri Guru Hargobind Steel Industries and M/s. King Steel Rolling Mills, for the relevant periods, had been produced before the adjudicating authority, but that authority did not appreciate the evidence. It has been further stated that the certificates issued by three of the said four manufacturers certifying that they had discharged duty under Rule 96 ZP (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, were produced before the lower appellate authority but that authority failed to consider the documents.