Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Prudential Polyweb (P) Ltd.

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Prudential Polyweb (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 21, 1998

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/12923

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/12923
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Feb 21, 1998
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Respondent

Prudential Polyweb (P) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)(99)ELT520Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. this is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the collector (appeals), indore made in order-in-appeal no. 203/93, dated 9-3-1993 whereunder he has allowed the modvat credit amounting to rs. 2,72,047/-. the facts of the case are that the respondent who is a manufacturer of hdpe polypropylene woven sacks/bags falling under chapter 39 of central excise tariff. for his commercial venture he used polypropylene which is declared input by means of import of bill of entry rotation no. 270 of 10-5-1991. the said bill of entry in case of 45 m.t. of the inputs have been imported whereas the respondent alleged to have consumed only 30 m.t. as reflected in the rg 23a entry made on 25-8-1991 and 27-8-1991 i.e. entries no. 153 and 156. it is the case of the department that the goods have been cleared from bombay custom house and the certificate which was demanded by the department from the jurisdictional supdt. indicate that the duty paying docu- ments are amended from kandla custom house. the appellate collector has agree with the contentions raised by the respondent stating that these are only procedural irregularity and said to be followed the judgement of tribunal in c.c.e. v. goodlass nerolac paints -1986 (26) e.l.t. 57. the said decision is being challenged by the department.2. in the ground of appeal it is stated that the order passed by the collector (appeals) is wrong in law inasmuch as the range superintendent's certificate does not tally with the duty paying documents viz. bill of entry. the port of importation in the b/e indicated bombay whereas the certificate given by the supdt. is kandla.therefore, there is no proper evidence of the duty paying document.ground taken by the department in my view, is totally misconceived as long as it is not the case of the department that the inputs have not been utilised in the manufacture of the final product which is the genesis or foundation of the claim of modvat. it is not the case of the department that.....

Full Judgment

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Collector (Appeals), Indore made in Order-in-Appeal No. 203/93, dated 9-3-1993 whereunder he has allowed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,72,047/-. The facts of the case are that the respondent who is a manufacturer of HDPE Polypropylene woven sacks/bags falling under Chapter 39 of Central Excise Tariff. For his commercial venture he used polypropylene which is declared input by means of import of Bill of Entry rotation No. 270 of 10-5-1991. The said Bill of Entry in case of 45 M.T. of the inputs have been imported whereas the respondent alleged to have consumed only 30 M.T. as reflected in the RG 23A entry made on 25-8-1991 and 27-8-1991 i.e. entries No. 153 and 156. It is the case of the department that the goods have been cleared from Bombay Custom House and the certificate which was demanded by the Department from the jurisdictional Supdt. indicate that the duty paying docu- ments are amended from Kandla Custom House. The Appellate Collector has agree with the contentions raised by the respondent stating that these are only procedural irregularity and said to be followed the judgement of Tribunal in C.C.E. v. Goodlass Nerolac Paints -1986 (26) E.L.T. 57. The said decision is being challenged by the department.

2. In the ground of appeal it is stated that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is wrong in law inasmuch as the Range Superintendent's Certificate does not tally with the duty paying documents viz. Bill of Entry. The port of importation in the B/E indicated Bombay whereas the certificate given by the Supdt. is Kandla.

Therefore, there is no proper evidence of the duty paying document.

Ground taken by the department in my view, is totally misconceived as long as it is not the case of the department that the inputs have not been utilised in the manufacture of the final product which is the genesis or foundation of the claim of Modvat. It is not the case of the department that the inputs and the final products have not been reflected in the declaration filed under 57G. Hence in my view the appeal of the department is totally devoid of any merits. Hence stands dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Prudential Polyweb (P) Ltd. Same Subject MRTP