Krishna Cans Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Krishna Cans vs Collector of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 29, 1998

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/14576

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/14576
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Oct 29, 1998
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Krishna Cans

Respondent

Collector of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(106)ELT414TriDel

Excerpt

1. the dispute in this appeal relates to assessment of aluminium containers manufactured by the appellant under notification no. 271/82.the appellant received aluminium circles as input for the manufacture of aluminium containers. these circles are duty paid. the documents under which the circles were received showed that in certain cases duty was paid by the supplier from the pla and in certain other cases through rg 23 part-ii account (under rule 56a).2. the appellant was also availing himself of rule 56a procedure in respect of the inputs. the adjudication order holds that the appellant could not avail himself of rule 56a benefit in respect of the inputs on which duty was discharged through rg 23 part-ii account and could not make use of such credit for the payment of duty on the containers. the reason given for this denial is that the circles on which duty was paid through rg 23 part-ii account seems to be non-duty paid goods as taking of proforma credit makes the goods as non-duty paid. the order also relies on government of india decision in revision application no.1202/80 passed in the case of m/s. hindustan wire products ltd. 3. arguing the appeal shri gopal prasad, learned counsel submits that the adjudication order has no basis in notification no. 271 /82. he submits that the notification does not provide that inputs on which duty is paid from rg 23 part-ii account by the supplier would not be eligible for the said notification. the availing of rule 56a procedure by supplier of the inputs to the appellant makes no difference for the purpose of notification no. 271 /82.4. heard shri nunthuk, learned jdr for the revenue. he submits that once proforma credit is availed, the input ceases to be duty paid. he refers us to the decision of the tribunal, 1987 (30) e.l.t. 741 (tribunal) of atic industries v. c.c.e., vadodara.5. we have considered the rival submissions and have perused the records of the case. we find that the notification no. 271/82 did not at all.....

Full Judgment

1. The dispute in this appeal relates to assessment of aluminium containers manufactured by the appellant under Notification No. 271/82.

The appellant received aluminium circles as input for the manufacture of aluminium containers. These circles are duty paid. The documents under which the circles were received showed that in certain cases duty was paid by the supplier from the PLA and in certain other cases through RG 23 Part-II account (under Rule 56A).

2. The appellant was also availing himself of Rule 56A procedure in respect of the inputs. The adjudication order holds that the appellant could not avail himself of Rule 56A benefit in respect of the inputs on which duty was discharged through RG 23 Part-II account and could not make use of such credit for the payment of duty on the containers. The reason given for this denial is that the circles on which duty was paid through RG 23 Part-II account seems to be non-duty paid goods as taking of proforma credit makes the goods as non-duty paid. The order also relies on Government of India decision in Revision Application No.1202/80 passed in the case of M/s. Hindustan Wire Products Ltd. 3. Arguing the appeal Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Counsel submits that the adjudication order has no basis in Notification No. 271 /82. He submits that the notification does not provide that inputs on which duty is paid from RG 23 Part-II account by the supplier would not be eligible for the said notification. The availing of Rule 56A procedure by supplier of the inputs to the appellant makes no difference for the purpose of Notification No. 271 /82.

4. Heard Shri Nunthuk, learned JDR for the Revenue. He submits that once proforma credit is availed, the input ceases to be duty paid. He refers us to the decision of the Tribunal, 1987 (30) E.L.T. 741 (Tribunal) of Atic Industries v. C.C.E., Vadodara.

5. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the records of the case. We find that the Notification No. 271/82 did not at all lay down the condition that for the purpose of assessment under that notification, input should not have discharged duty from RG 23 Part-II account. Therefore, we are not able to find any support for the order of adjudication in the notification. The case law referred by the learned DR is not relevant in the present case.

6. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant and the impugned order is set aside.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Krishna Cans vs Collector of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax