Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Amar Products

Collector of Central Excise vs Amar Products

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 26, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16591

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Amar Products

Legal References

Reported In
(2000)(117)ELT623TriDel

Excerpt

1.these are two appeals preferred by revenue against orders dated 10-8-1992 and 31-12-1992 passed by the collector (appeals) allowing the refund of modvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods which were exported out of india.2. shri r.k. sharma, learned sdr, emphasised that the finished goods were not cleared for export under ar-4 or ar-4a and as the procedure prescribed for the purpose of export of excisable goods has not been followed the refund of modvat credit is not available to both the respondents. it was brought to our notice that in the respondents' own matter the tribunal vide final order nos. e/745-746/97-b1, dated 30-4-1997 has held as under :- "the refund of credit of duty taken is admissible subject to such conditions or limitations as set out in the relevant notification. notification 85/77, dated 1-3-1987 itself specified bill of lading or shipping bill as acceptable documents, on the basis of which export could be proved in this case since gp-2 and shipping bill and bank certificate had been produced nothing more required to be done...." 3. we find that in this case also gp-2, shipping bill, bill of lading, export invoice have been produced showing the export. the collector (appeals) also observed that the adjudicating authority had nowhere disputed the export of goods. following the ratio of the decision of the tribunal in the respondents' own case earlier, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and reject both the appeals.

Full Judgment

1.These are two appeals preferred by Revenue against orders dated 10-8-1992 and 31-12-1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals) allowing the refund of Modvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods which were exported out of India.

2. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned SDR, emphasised that the finished goods were not cleared for export under AR-4 or AR-4A and as the procedure prescribed for the purpose of export of excisable goods has not been followed the refund of Modvat credit is not available to both the respondents. It was brought to our notice that in the respondents' own matter the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. E/745-746/97-B1, dated 30-4-1997 has held as under :- "The refund of credit of duty taken is admissible subject to such conditions or limitations as set out in the relevant notification.

Notification 85/77, dated 1-3-1987 itself specified bill of lading or shipping bill as acceptable documents, on the basis of which export could be proved in this case since GP-2 and Shipping Bill and Bank Certificate had been produced nothing more required to be done...." 3. We find that in this case also GP-2, Shipping Bill, bill of lading, export invoice have been produced showing the export. The Collector (Appeals) also observed that the adjudicating authority had nowhere disputed the export of goods. Following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the respondents' own case earlier, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and reject both the appeals.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial