Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Beepee Coating Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Beepee Coating Ltd.

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

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/19777

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/19777
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J T J.H.
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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Beepee Coating Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(74)ECC676

Excerpt

1. this appeal is filed by the revenue against the commissioner's order wherein he set aside the denial of modvat credit by the asstt.commissioner. the present application has been filed by the respondents for early hearing of the department's appeal on merits.2. shri a.k. jain jdr represented the revenue. none appeared for the assessee.3. the point of law being very short, the appeal was taken up for disposal. the respondents availed modvat credit of duty on certain goods. it appeared that there were two exemption notifications relating to the inputs. one prescribed concessional rate of duty and the other one granted clearance free of duty. the manufacturers of the inputs chose to pay the concessional rate of duty instead of availing of the other notification. when the recipient manufacturer who is the respondent today took the credit, the credit was denied in the impugned proceedings.4. the respondent relied upon the tribunals's order no. c-i/2101-2110 dated 2.6.2000. paragraph 9 thereof says-- if an assessee choose (sic) [chooses] not to avail of an exemption notification, it cannot be said that he is in effect exercising an option to avail or not to avail the parliamentary will. it is the same legislature which has provided him two rates of duty one of which he is required to follow.5. thus the revenue cannot force the first manufacturer as to the availment of a particular notification. consequently, the recipient manufacturer cannot be deprived of the credit. in the result the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner's order wherein he set aside the denial of modvat credit by the Asstt.

Commissioner. The present application has been filed by the respondents for early hearing of the department's appeal on merits.

2. Shri A.K. Jain JDR represented the Revenue. None appeared for the assessee.

3. The point of law being very short, the appeal was taken up for disposal. The respondents availed modvat credit of duty on certain goods. It appeared that there were two exemption notifications relating to the inputs. One prescribed concessional rate of duty and the other one granted clearance free of duty. The manufacturers of the inputs chose to pay the concessional rate of duty instead of availing of the other notification. When the recipient manufacturer who is the respondent today took the credit, the credit was denied in the impugned proceedings.

4. The Respondent relied upon the Tribunals's Order No. C-I/2101-2110 dated 2.6.2000. Paragraph 9 thereof says-- if an assessee choose (sic) [chooses] not to avail of an exemption notification, it cannot be said that he is in effect exercising an option to avail or not to avail the parliamentary will. It is the same Legislature which has provided him two rates of duty one of which he is required to follow.

5. Thus the Revenue cannot force the first manufacturer as to the availment of a particular notification. Consequently, the recipient manufacturer cannot be deprived of the credit. In the result the appeal is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Beepee Coating Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge J T J.H.