Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Spartan Electricals

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Spartan Electricals

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 13, 1998

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/14123

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/14123
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Aug 13, 1998
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

Spartan Electricals

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(112)ELT845Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. this is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the collector (appeals) who by the impugned order has held that the demand made by the assistant collector was barred by limitation.2. the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under chapter 85 of ceta, 1985. the respondents applied under rule 57h(3) for transfer of credit lying in rg 23 part ii to rg 23a part ii. the said amount represents balance in respect of credit taken on electrical stampings and lamination and die cast rotors during the period from 1-3-1986 and in view of the fact that they were working under rule 56a the credit taken under notification 95/83 during the period was not admissible. since the amount was erroneously permitted and claimed under rule 57-i of the central excise rules and by order dated 3-11-1993 he confirmed the demand against which an appeal was filed and the appellate authority by the impugned order has said that the credit was wrongly taken under rule 56a and not under rule 57a.moreover, by the judgment of the larger bench of the tribunal in rex india ltd. v. collector of central excise -1997 (96) e.l.t. 434 the normal time should be six months. here the show cause notice has been issued beyond six months. hence following the said judgment i dismiss the appeal of the department.

Full Judgment

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Collector (Appeals) who by the impugned order has held that the demand made by the Assistant Collector was barred by limitation.

2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 85 of CETA, 1985. The respondents applied under Rule 57H(3) for transfer of credit lying in RG 23 Part II to RG 23A Part II. The said amount represents balance in respect of credit taken on electrical stampings and lamination and die cast rotors during the period from 1-3-1986 and in view of the fact that they were working under Rule 56A the credit taken under Notification 95/83 during the period was not admissible. Since the amount was erroneously permitted and claimed under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules and by order dated 3-11-1993 he confirmed the demand against which an appeal was filed and the appellate authority by the impugned order has said that the credit was wrongly taken under Rule 56A and not under Rule 57A.Moreover, by the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Rex India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise -1997 (96) E.L.T. 434 the normal time should be six months. Here the show cause notice has been issued beyond six months. Hence following the said judgment I dismiss the appeal of the department.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Spartan Electricals Same Subject Excise