Precot Mills Ltd. B. Unit and anr. Vs. Cce

Precot Mills Ltd. B. Unit and anr. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad Decided Nov 21, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/19809

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/19809
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad
Judge: S Peeran, S T S.S.
Decided On: Nov 21, 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

Precot Mills Ltd. B. Unit and anr.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(95)LC151Tri(Hyd.)erabad

Excerpt

.....of central excise rules, 1944 with effect from 16.3.1993.2. learned consultant sri c. rao submits that the larger bench of the tribunal in the case of chemo pulp tissue and ors. v. cce, as reported in 2000 (38) rlt 988 have examined the scope of section 112 of the finance act, 2000 and held that in view of the retrospective provisions, it was held that modvat credit on hsd oil was not eligible in terms of the above quoted rules. therefore, in view of the present position, the appellants are not contesting the credit on hsd oil but are challenging the imposition of penalty of rs. 20,000/- in the case of m/s. precot mills ltd. in appeal no. e/1023/2000. he points out that the aspect pertaining to non-leviability of penalty is considered by this bench in a batch matter in the case of s.p. spinning mills ltd. and ors. vide final order no. 945-998/2000 dated 27.7.2000 2000 (93) ecr 560 (t) and held that penalty is not imposable.3. learned dr contends that modvat credit is not available on hsd oil and reiterated the findings of the impugned order.4. we have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and we have perused the larger bench judgment, which has held that modvat credit on hsd oil is not eligible in terms of the above quoted rules.in the case of s.p. spinning mills ltd. and ors., vide final order no.945-998/2000 dated 27.7.2000- srb 2000 (93) ecr 560 (t), wherein this bench passed the following order in para 3, which is reproduced herein below: we have considered the appeals and stay petitions before us and find that the issue has been settled by larger bench decision reported in the case of chemo pulp tissues and ors. v. cce, meerut and ors. as in 2000 (38) rlt 988cegat (l.b.) and following the same, which is noted herein below, we dismiss the appeals/stay filed by the assessees and allow the appeals filed by the revenue. notwithstanding anything contained in any rule of the central excise rules, 1944, no credit of any duty paid on high speed diesel.....

Full Judgment

1. In both these stay applications and appeals, a common question of law and facts arises, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. The question in both the appeals is as to whether the Modvat credit is available on HSD oil in terms of Rule 57A/57B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 with effect from 16.3.1993.

2. Learned consultant Sri C. Rao submits that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Chemo Pulp Tissue and Ors. v. CCE, as reported in 2000 (38) RLT 988 have examined the scope of Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000 and held that in view of the retrospective provisions, it was held that Modvat credit on HSD Oil was not eligible in terms of the above quoted Rules. Therefore, in view of the present position, the appellants are not contesting the credit on HSD oil but are challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- in the case of M/s. Precot Mills Ltd. in Appeal No. E/1023/2000. He points out that the aspect pertaining to non-leviability of penalty is considered by this Bench in a batch matter in the case of S.P. Spinning Mills Ltd. and Ors. vide final order No. 945-998/2000 dated 27.7.2000 2000 (93) ECR 560 (T) and held that penalty is not imposable.

3. Learned DR contends that Modvat credit is not available on HSD oil and reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and we have perused the Larger Bench judgment, which has held that Modvat credit on HSD oil is not eligible in terms of the above quoted Rules.

In the case of S.P. Spinning Mills Ltd. and Ors., vide final order No.945-998/2000 dated 27.7.2000- SRB 2000 (93) ECR 560 (T), wherein this Bench passed the following order in para 3, which is reproduced herein below: We have considered the appeals and stay petitions before us and find that the issue has been settled by Larger Bench decision reported in the case of Chemo Pulp Tissues and Ors. v. CCE, Meerut and Ors. as in 2000 (38) RLT 988CEGAT (L.B.) and following the same, which is noted herein below, we dismiss the appeals/stay filed by the assessees and allow the appeals filed by the Revenue.

Notwithstanding anything contained in any Rule of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, no credit of any duty paid on high speed diesel oil at any time during the period commencing on and from the 16th day of March, 1995 and ending with the day, the Finance Act, 2000 receives the assent of the President, shall be deemed to be admissible.

The following Explanation was also included in that Section, which reads__ For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no act or omission on the part of any person shall be punishable as an offence which would not have been so punishable if this section had not come into force This provision has come into force with effect from 12.5.2000. In view of this provision contained in the Finance Act, we do not find any justification for entertaining these appeals. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. But, we make it clear that in view of the Explanation, order imposing penalty is not sustainable. In other words, penalties imposed by the authorities in the impugned orders are found unsustainable.

5. In terms of the above final order, the penalty is not imposable and as such, while dismissing both the stay applications and appeals, penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed in the case of M/s Precot Mills Ltd. is set aside. Both the appeals & stay applications are disposed of in the above terms.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyde... Same Parties Precot Mills Ltd. B. Unit and anr. vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Peeran, S T S.S.