Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Innovative Prints

Commissioner of Central Excise vs innovative Prints

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 20, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16805

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/16805
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Sep 20, 1999
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

innovative Prints

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(114)ELT745Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....was classifiable under heading 4823.90, but later revised its opinion to say that it would be classifiable under 4820.00, and exempted from duty under notification no. 43/86. the question for consideration in this appeal is, to what extent the credit could be taken of the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of such computer stationery.2. we have heard the departmental representative. respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. notification 177/86, dated 1-3-1986 was amended by notification no.149/87 which limits credit taken of the duty on paper and paper board (other than these manufactured in a free trade zone) or 100% export oriented undertaking to rs. 800 per ton of actual paid, which however was less. adjudicating on an appeal against the asst. collector's order limiting the credit rs. 800 per ton, collector (appeals) has said that since in any case it appears that the final product was exempted and no credit available, the whole exercise is of academic significance, there is no objection to the credit being taken at the higher rate.departmental representative challenges this finding.4. we note that question of the applicability of notification no. 43/86 was pending and was not the subject matter in the appeal before the collector (appeals). the collector (appeals) specifically said that he does not wish to comment on the refund. if, as a result of duty being payable on the inputs, credit was available, such credit, in the case before us, would be limited to rs. 800 per ton by virtue of amendment of 177/86. this issue become entirely irrelevant if, as a result of any refund paid to the manufacturer on the final product is disentitled to taking credit. till that is shown to be a case, there is no reason as to why the credit should not be regulated according to law.5. accordingly we allow the appeal, set aside the collector (appeals) order and restore the asst. collector's order.

Full Judgment

1. The respondent to this appeal took Modvat credit on paper used by it in the manufacture of computer stationery. There was some dispute during the relevant period of the classification of computer stationery. The Board in February, 1991 said that it was classifiable under Heading 4823.90, but later revised its opinion to say that it would be classifiable under 4820.00, and exempted from duty under Notification No. 43/86. The question for consideration in this appeal is, to what extent the credit could be taken of the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of such computer stationery.

2. We have heard the Departmental Representative. Respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.

3. Notification 177/86, dated 1-3-1986 was amended by Notification No.149/87 which limits credit taken of the duty on paper and paper board (other than these manufactured in a free trade zone) or 100% Export Oriented Undertaking to Rs. 800 per ton of actual paid, which however was less. Adjudicating on an appeal against the Asst. Collector's order limiting the credit Rs. 800 per ton, Collector (Appeals) has said that since in any case it appears that the final product was exempted and no credit available, the whole exercise is of academic significance, there is no objection to the credit being taken at the higher rate.

Departmental representative challenges this finding.

4. We note that question of the applicability of Notification No. 43/86 was pending and was not the subject matter in the appeal before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) specifically said that he does not wish to comment on the refund. If, as a result of duty being payable on the inputs, credit was available, such credit, in the case before us, would be limited to Rs. 800 per ton by virtue of amendment of 177/86. This issue become entirely irrelevant if, as a result of any refund paid to the manufacturer on the final product is disentitled to taking credit. Till that is shown to be a case, there is no reason as to why the credit should not be regulated according to law.

5. Accordingly we allow the appeal, set aside the Collector (Appeals) order and restore the Asst. Collector's order.

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