Frick India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Frick India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 18, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/18952

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/18952
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Aug 18, 2000
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

Frick India Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(122)ELT156TriDel

Excerpt

.....that though the pre-printing of serial no. of the invoices is mandatory in terms of sub-rule (6) of rule 52(a), but the credit cannot be denied on this ground alone if the department is not inclined to collect duty once again from the parent manufacturer. further, reliance is placed on the tribunal decision in the case of nezon tubes ltd. v. cce, shillong -1998 (104) e.l.t. 559 (tribunal). in this decision a double member bench of the cegat has held that the invoices not conforming to prescribed colour scheme and not having pre-printed serial numbers are minor lapses which should not be made the basis for denial of substantive benefit of modvat credit.3. shri v.m. udhoji, jdr appearing for the revenue has relied on the larger bench decision of the cegat, in cce, new delhi v. avis electronics pvt. ltd. - 2000 (117) e.l.t. 571 (t). according to the id.jdr the tribunal in this decision has laid down the law that when a particular thing is directed to be performed in a manner prescribed by rules it should be performed in that manner itself and not otherwise.if the rule prescribes pre-printing of the invoices, they must be pre-printed in order to be admissible for availing the modvat credit.4. i have carefully considered this submissions made before me. shri hari shankar, advocate has relied on the decisions referred to supra which are specifically on the point of pre-printing of the invoices - the issue under consideration in the present appeal and these decisions are in favour of his case. the id. jdr has placed reliance on a decision which lays down general rule of interpretation of statutory provisions and is not specifically on the point in issue. in view of the fact that the matter is already covered in favour of the appellants by the aforestated decisions of the cegat, the appellants have made out a prima facie case in their favour. the appeal is, therefore, admitted for consideration. the appellant are granted the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.....

Full Judgment

1. This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-12-1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, in which the appellate authority has upheld the order dated 21-10-1997 of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Faridabad denying the respondent the Modvat credit of Rs. 29,334/- availed on inputs against the invoices on which the Serial No. was not pre-printed but was handwritten. The original authority had also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3000/- on the party.

2. The matter is listed today for admission and stay Shri Hari Shanker, Advocate appearing for the appellants has relied on the decision of Id.

Single Member of the CEGAT in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v.C.C.E. Jaipur -1998 (103) E.L.T. 77 (T). In this order it is held that though the pre-printing of serial No. of the invoices is mandatory in terms of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 52(A), but the credit cannot be denied on this ground alone if the department is not inclined to collect duty once again from the parent manufacturer. Further, reliance is placed on the Tribunal decision in the case of Nezon Tubes Ltd. v. CCE, Shillong -1998 (104) E.L.T. 559 (Tribunal). In this decision a Double Member Bench of the CEGAT has held that the invoices not conforming to prescribed colour scheme and not having pre-printed serial numbers are minor lapses which should not be made the basis for denial of substantive benefit of Modvat credit.

3. Shri V.M. Udhoji, JDR appearing for the Revenue has relied on the Larger Bench decision of the CEGAT, in CCE, New Delhi v. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 571 (T). According to the Id.

JDR the Tribunal in this decision has laid down the law that when a particular thing is directed to be performed in a manner prescribed by Rules it should be performed in that manner itself and not otherwise.

If the rule prescribes pre-printing of the invoices, they must be pre-printed in order to be admissible for availing the Modvat credit.

4. I have carefully considered this submissions made before me. Shri Hari Shankar, Advocate has relied on the decisions referred to supra which are specifically on the point of pre-printing of the invoices - the issue under consideration in the present appeal and these decisions are in favour of his case. The Id. JDR has placed reliance on a decision which lays down general rule of interpretation of statutory provisions and is not specifically on the point in issue. In view of the fact that the matter is already covered in favour of the appellants by the aforestated decisions of the CEGAT, the appellants have made out a prima facie case in their favour. The appeal is, therefore, admitted for consideration. The appellant are granted the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty confirmed against them and stay of the same till the disposal of the appeal. Further, the appeal is listed for hearing for final disposal on 01.11.2000.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Frick India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax