Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Integrated Organic Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs integrated Organic Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 23, 1997

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/11859

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/11859
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Sep 23, 1997
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

integrated Organic Pvt. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(111)ELT882TriDel

Excerpt

.....dealer, are valid duty paying documents under rule 57g and has granted the benefit.2. the revenue is aggrieved with the benefit granted on these invoices on the ground that m/s. m.g. associates were not wholesale dealer but only wholesale buyer in terms of the certificate issued by the manufacturer himself.the commissioner had also given a finding that the modvat credit taken on original copy of trader is valid for the relevant period as the amendment to the rule came only in january, 1995 and the period in question is july, 94 to oct., 94. on this point no grounds have been raised. the only ground raised is that the credit taken on the input supplied by m/s. m.g. associates should not be allowed as they are not wholesale dealer.3. i have heard both the sides in the matter and have also perused the definition of the term 'wholesale dealer' or 'wholesale buyer' appearing in section 2(k) of central excises & salt act, 1944, which has been relied by the commissioner (appeals) to grant the benefit. in terms of this definition a person who buys or sales excisable goods for manufacturing shall be treated as wholesale dealer. a manufacturer has issued a certificate certifying that m/s. m.g. associates is one of their wholesale buyers. the word "buyer" does not suggest that they are not wholesale dealer, therefore, a restricted meaning to the term 'wholesaler buyer' cannot be imposed as contended by the revenue in this appeal. the term 'wholesale buyer' as stated in the manufacturer's certificate has been correctly understood by the commissioner (appeals), to mean 'wholesale dealer' in terms of section 2(k) of the act. in that view of the matter, the bench does not see any infirmity in the impugned order and therefore, the grant of modvat credit on the said invoices by the commissioner is in order and there is no illegality. in that view of the matter, there is no merit in this appeal, hence the same is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. This is a Revenue appeal arising from the Collector (Appeals) order dated 4-1-1995. In the impugned order, he has partly allowed the party's claim while he rejected the claim pertaining to invoice No.199, dated 4-7-1994 on the ground that the assessee had failed to establish that M/s. M.G. Associates are registered dealer with Central Excise department. The assessee filed a separate appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after hearing them by Final Order No.A/126/97-NB, dated 14-1-1997 had remanded that issue. The other issue which was before the Commissioner (Appeals) was with regard to accepting the invoice No. 140, dated 17-6-1994 issued by M/s. M.G.Associates as being in order on the ground that the said dealer is a wholesale dealer falling within the definition of Section 2(k) of Central Excises & Salt Act and therefore, the assessees' taking credit on invoice No. 140, dated 17-6-1994 is in order. He has held that the credit taken on invoice No. 4, dated 20-9-1994 and invoice No. 12, dated 26-10-1994 of M/s. Aristo Electronics, Delhi who is a registered dealer, are valid duty paying documents under Rule 57G and has granted the benefit.

2. The Revenue is aggrieved with the benefit granted on these invoices on the ground that M/s. M.G. Associates were not wholesale dealer but only wholesale buyer in terms of the certificate issued by the manufacturer himself.The Commissioner had also given a finding that the MODVAT Credit taken on original copy of trader is valid for the relevant period as the amendment to the rule came only in January, 1995 and the period in question is July, 94 to Oct., 94. On this point no grounds have been raised. The only ground raised is that the Credit taken on the input supplied by M/s. M.G. Associates should not be allowed as they are not wholesale dealer.

3. I have heard both the sides in the matter and have also perused the definition of the term 'wholesale dealer' or 'wholesale buyer' appearing in Section 2(k) of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, which has been relied by the Commissioner (Appeals) to grant the benefit. In terms of this definition a person who buys or sales excisable goods for manufacturing shall be treated as wholesale dealer. A manufacturer has issued a certificate certifying that M/s. M.G. Associates is one of their wholesale buyers. The word "buyer" does not suggest that they are not wholesale dealer, therefore, a restricted meaning to the term 'wholesaler buyer' cannot be imposed as contended by the Revenue in this appeal. The term 'wholesale buyer' as stated in the manufacturer's certificate has been correctly understood by the Commissioner (Appeals), to mean 'wholesale dealer' in terms of Section 2(k) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the Bench does not see any infirmity in the impugned order and therefore, the grant of Modvat credit on the said invoices by the Commissioner is in order and there is no illegality. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this appeal, hence the same is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs integrated Organic Pvt. Ltd. Same Subject Excise