Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Shatrunjay Extrusions Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs and vs Shatrunjay Extrusions Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 20, 2000

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/18513

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/18513
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T Gowri, J S Murthy
Decided On: Jun 20, 2000
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs and

Respondent

Shatrunjay Extrusions Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(71)ECC155

Excerpt

1. the annexure b stated to contain the grounds of stay of operation of the commissioner's order is missing and the departmental representative is not able to explain the absence. apart from this, the ground that the invoice on which modvat credit was taken, which is in dispute, issued by unregistered dealer is prima facie difficult to sustain. the representative of the applicant has produced copies of the registration certificates of m/s. jugraj tejraj & sons and associated aluminium, who are the only dealers who issued the invoices; the other invoices were issued by the manufacturers. it is also seen that these were submitted to the asst. commissioner by letter dated 19.11.94, long before the adjudication.2. the other ground that credit was taken on original invoices appear to be settled by the decision of the tribunal, the issue in any case appear to be more procedural and substantive and does not justify stay of operation of the order. application is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. The annexure B stated to contain the grounds of stay of operation of the Commissioner's order is missing and the departmental representative is not able to explain the absence. Apart from this, the ground that the invoice on which Modvat credit was taken, which is in dispute, issued by unregistered dealer is prima facie difficult to sustain. The representative of the applicant has produced copies of the registration certificates of M/s. Jugraj Tejraj & Sons and Associated Aluminium, who are the only dealers who issued the invoices; the other invoices were issued by the manufacturers. It is also seen that these were submitted to the Asst. Commissioner by letter dated 19.11.94, long before the adjudication.

2. The other ground that credit was taken on original invoices appear to be settled by the decision of the Tribunal, the issue in any case appear to be more procedural and substantive and does not justify stay of operation of the order. Application is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Customs and vs Shatrunjay Extrusions Ltd. Same Subject Excise Same Judge S T Gowri, J S Murthy