ALLIED UDYOG Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned order -in -appeal, the issue relates to the availability of deemed modvat credit disallowed to the appellants is that the manufacturer/supplier of the goods, M/s. Dhiman Industries did not discharge the full duty liability under Rule 96ZP (3). But from the record, it is evident that M/s. Dhiman Industries Ltd. initially disputed Thais liability under the said Rules. Apart from this it is also evident from the bare perusal of the impugned order itself that M/s. Dhiman Industries had even discharged full duty for the period in dispute during which the goods were supplied by them to the appellants. Therefore, under these circumstances, the deemed credit cannot be legally disallowed to the appellants. In this view. I am fortified by the law laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vikas Pipes vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh wherein in identical case the deemed credit had been allowed which the Department initially sought to disallow on the ground that the supplier had not discharged its excise duty liability.

(2.) Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.