Cce Vs. Multitech Auto Ltd.

Cce vs Multitech Auto Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 17, 2000

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/19773

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/19773
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: J Balasundaram, A T V.K.
Decided On: Nov 17, 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

Cce

Respondent

Multitech Auto Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(73)ECC559

Excerpt

1. according to the revenue which has filed the above application, a mistake arises in the tribunal's final order no. 921/2000-b dated 16.6.2000 in holding that the appellants have also requested for condonation of the very short delay of two days in filing declaration under rule 57t of the central excise rules, since no application was actually filed by them.2. i have heard submission of both sides. in paragraph 3 of the tribunal's final order it has been held that the appellants have requested for condonation of the very short delay in filing the declaration, and that the delay cannot be the ground for denial of credit, and hence credit of rs. 17,900 has been held to be admissible on capital goods. on perusal of the records i find that in reply to the show cause notice, assessees have asked for condonation of the delay in filing declaration and, therefore, the tribunal has correctly held that there was a request for condonation of delay by the appellants. hence, no error apparent from the record arises in this case. accordingly, the r.o.m is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. According to the Revenue which has filed the above application, a mistake arises in the Tribunal's Final Order No. 921/2000-B dated 16.6.2000 in holding that the appellants have also requested for condonation of the very short delay of two days in filing declaration under Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, since no application was actually filed by them.

2. I have heard submission of both sides. In paragraph 3 of the Tribunal's final order it has been held that the appellants have requested for condonation of the very short delay in filing the declaration, and that the delay cannot be the ground for denial of credit, and hence credit of Rs. 17,900 has been held to be admissible on capital goods. On perusal of the records I find that in reply to the show cause notice, assessees have asked for condonation of the delay in filing declaration and, therefore, the Tribunal has correctly held that there was a request for condonation of delay by the appellants. Hence, no error apparent from the record arises in this case. Accordingly, the R.O.M is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Multitech Auto Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge J Balasundaram, A T V.K.