ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Shree Ambica Steel Industries, the issue involved is whether credit of deemed duty under Notification No. 58/97-C.E., dated 30-8-97 is available to them.
2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the credit of deemed duty has been denied to them in respect of supplies of inputs by M/s. Bhawani Steel Rolling Mills as no Certificate of Jurisdictional Range Officer regarding deposit of duty has been produced by them; that the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Shivay Industries v. CCE, Chandigarh, Final Order No. 326/2002, dated 11-3-2002 has held that the notification does not stipulate the submission of a Certificate from the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent. Learned Advocate further submitted that the goods have been received by them under the cover of invoice which mentions that the goods have been cleared under Rule 96 ZP(3) which presume that duty has been paid.
3. On the other hand, Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned Departmental Representative submitted that as per Para 4 of the Notification the goods are required to be received under the cover of invoices declaring that the appropriate duty of excise has been paid; that in absence of any particulars of duty payment on the invoice, it cannot be presumed that the duty of excise has been paid.
4. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. The credit of the deemed duty is available under the Notification No. 58/97 only on the condition that the inputs are received directly from the factory of manufacturer under the cover of invoices declaring that the appropriate duty of excise has been paid under the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. Mere mention in the invoice that the goods had been removed under the provisions of Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise, 1944 does not indicate that the duty has been discharged. For the purpose of availing the benefit of the notification, the burden is cast on the Appellants to show that the duty has been paid by the supplier. One of the method to show the payment of duty is production of the Certificate from the range concerned under which the supplier unit falls. The learned Advocate, at this stage, submitted that the Appellants have also now brought on record the Certificate issued by the Range Superintendent to the effect that M/s. Bhawani Steels Rolling Mills have paid the Central Excise duty from September, 1997 to August, 1998 as per capacity declared by them. As the Appellants have now produced the Certificate, and Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the benefit of notification only for non-production of Certificate, the Appeal is allowed.