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.

Auto Ignition Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Auto Ignition Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 15, 2000
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/18278

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 Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
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

Auto Ignition Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In
(2003)(160)ELT1127Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

2. the order of the commissioner impugned in this appeal adjudicates upon two notices to show cause notice issued to the appellants. the notices, which are identical in facts, allege that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of notification 203/92 in respect of the goods imported by it, for the reason that one of the conditions of the notification, contained in paragraph 5(v) was contravened, since modvat credit was taken on the inputs used to manufacture the export goods. in his order, the commissioner has confirmed the demand for duty.3. the appellant's reply to the notice does not, in terms, assert that credit was not taken. it dwells mainly on availability of credit on the imported raw material, with which the notice was not concerned. even so, it was up to the custom house which alleged that credit had been taken, to show that this was the case. the departmental representative was given an opportunity to have this aspect verified at the last hearing. he tells us today that he has not received any answer from the commissioner concerned, despite correspondence addressed to him and personal efforts made by him. it is also to be noted that the notices to show cause were issued after the imported goods were cleared, after according to them the benefit, of notification. it was therefore all the more reason to indicate the basis for the allegation that credit had been taken. this was required to be supplemented, since the notice was issued beyond six months from the relevant date by material justifying the invocation of the extended period contained in the proviso under section 28(1) of the act. there is a total absence of any material justifying the allegation of suppression. the advocate for the appellant makes a statement that it was never stated by the appellant that it had not availed modvat credit. one of the two bills of entry under which the goods were imported, of which a copy is enclosed, does not contain any such declaration. that being the case.....

Full Judgment

2. The order of the Commissioner impugned in this appeal adjudicates upon two notices to show cause notice issued to the appellants. The notices, which are identical in facts, allege that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of notification 203/92 in respect of the goods imported by it, for the reason that one of the conditions of the notification, contained in paragraph 5(v) was contravened, since Modvat credit was taken on the inputs used to manufacture the export goods. In his order, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand for duty.

3. The appellant's reply to the notice does not, in terms, assert that credit was not taken. It dwells mainly on availability of credit on the imported raw material, with which the notice was not concerned. Even so, it was up to the Custom House which alleged that credit had been taken, to show that this was the case. The departmental representative was given an opportunity to have this aspect verified at the last hearing. He tells us today that he has not received any answer from the Commissioner concerned, despite correspondence addressed to him and personal efforts made by him. It is also to be noted that the notices to show cause were issued after the imported goods were cleared, after according to them the benefit, of notification. It was therefore all the more reason to indicate the basis for the allegation that credit had been taken. This was required to be supplemented, since the notice was issued beyond six months from the relevant date by material justifying the invocation of the extended period contained in the proviso under Section 28(1) of the Act. There is a total absence of any material justifying the allegation of suppression. The Advocate for the appellant makes a statement that it was never stated by the appellant that it had not availed Modvat credit. One of the two bills of entry under which the goods were imported, of which a copy is enclosed, does not contain any such declaration. That being the case the contention of the appellant that there is no basis whatsoever for the demand has to be accepted.

4. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial