SUPER TRADING CO. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these 8 appeals, arising out of a common Order -in -Original No. 244 -52/03 dated 30.5.2003, the issue involved relates to availability of deemed Modvat Credit under Notification No. 58/97 -CE dated 30.8.97.

(2.) Shri Balbir Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that all the appellants manufacture M.S. sockets, out of M.S. bars which they procure from M/s. Dhiman Industries Ltd., who were paying Central Excise duty under the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that all the appellants availed of deemed Modvat Credit at the rate of 12% of the invoice value under Notification No. 58/97 -CE; that the duty has been demanded and penalties have been imposed on the ground that their supplier M/s. Dhiman Industries Ltd. had not discharged their duty liability as per the annual capacity of production determined by the Commissioner; that the invoices, alongwith which they had received the goods, contain the declaration to the effect that the duty had been paid under Rule 96ZP; that in view of this factual position, Modvat Credit cannot be denied to them. Finally, he submitted that in any case M/s. Dhiman Industries Ltd. have now discharged their duty liability for the period from April 1999 to November 1999 which is the relevant period in all these appeals.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri H.C. Verma, learned DR, submitted that the fact remains that appropriate duty had not been discharged by their supplier and they were not eligible for the deemed Modvat Credit at the material time; that this was the specific requirement of Rule 57A(6), which provides that the manufacture shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the inputs acquired by him are goods on which appropriate duty of excise as indicated in the documents accompanying the goods has been paid under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act.