M/S. Vindhya Enterprises Vs. Cce, Raipur

M/S. Vindhya Enterprises vs Cce, Raipur

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 12, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/20001

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/20001
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Dec 12, 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

M/S. Vindhya Enterprises

Respondent

Cce, Raipur

Excerpt

2. shri n.r. khaitan, advocate appearing with ms. rohina nath, advocate submits that it is a fact that the mumbai department of m/s. bharat heavy electricals ltd. (bhel) could not obtain registration prior to 31.12.94 but it is also a fact that the appellants were a bonafide purchasers and had purchased goods on the basis of the invoices and there was no doubt that the duty has been paid and the goods have been received. he submits that under the similar circumstances the tribunal has taken a view that the modvat credit was not to be denied in the absence of any other infringement of the law. he refers to the tribunal's decision in the case of commissioner of central excise, mumbai-i vs. vasumati printers = 2000 (115) elt 731 (tribunal).3. i have heard shri a.k. jain, sdr for the respondents/revenue and shri n.r. khaitan, advocate and ms. rohina nath, advocate for the appellants, m/s. vindhya enterprises and have gone through the record.4. in para-5 of his order-in-appeal, the commissioner of central excise (appeals) has recorded as under:- "5. i find from the above, that the credits were taken by the appellants during the month of august, 1994 to september, 1994 on the strength of invoices issued by an unregistered dealer, is not in dispute. though the appellants has submitted that the dealer was registered subsequently before 31.12.94 but in support of his claim, he did not produce anything to indicate that the dealer was registered subsequently. since, there is nothing on record to show that dealer was registered prior to 31.12.94, the appellants is not eligible for credit on the basis of such documents, in view of the cbec's circular (supra). the fact of the case law cited by the appellants is clearly distinguishable from the case under consideration. this being the position, the credit has rightly been denied by the adjudicating authority and i do not find any reason to interfere with the imp-ugned order." 5. i find that it is an admitted position that at no.....

Full Judgment

2. Shri N.R. Khaitan, Advocate appearing with Ms. Rohina Nath, Advocate submits that it is a fact that the Mumbai Department of M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) could not obtain registration prior to 31.12.94 but it is also a fact that the appellants were a bonafide purchasers and had purchased goods on the basis of the invoices and there was no doubt that the duty has been paid and the goods have been received. He submits that under the similar circumstances the Tribunal has taken a view that the modvat credit was not to be denied in the absence of any other infringement of the law. He refers to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I Vs. Vasumati Printers = 2000 (115) ELT 731 (Tribunal).

3. I have heard Shri A.K. Jain, SDR for the respondents/revenue and Shri N.R. Khaitan, Advocate and Ms. Rohina Nath, Advocate for the appellants, M/s. Vindhya Enterprises and have gone through the record.

4. In para-5 of his order-in-appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has recorded as under:- "5. I find from the above, that the credits were taken by the appellants during the month of August, 1994 to September, 1994 on the strength of invoices issued by an unregistered dealer, is not in dispute. Though the appellants has submitted that the dealer was registered subsequently before 31.12.94 but in support of his claim, he did not produce anything to indicate that the dealer was registered subsequently. Since, there is nothing on record to show that dealer was registered prior to 31.12.94, the appellants is not eligible for credit on the basis of such documents, in view of the CBEC's circular (supra). The fact of the case law cited by the appellants is clearly distinguishable from the case under consideration. This being the position, the credit has rightly been denied by the adjudicating authority and I do not find any reason to interfere with the imp-ugned order." 5. I find that it is an admitted position that at no stage, the Mumbai Department of BHEL was registered.

6. The law was clear and the requirement of registration upto 31.12.94 was an extra legal concession and even within this concession this particular case is not covered.In the case referred to by the 1d.

Advocate that commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I Vs. Vasumati Printers 2000 (115) ELT 731 (Tribunal), it was an admitted position that the suppliers, M/s. Parekh Sales AGency got themselves registered under the relevant rules on 18.8.94. Under Board's Circular No.6/76/94-CX, dated 8.11.1994, it was provided that the invoices issued by the un-registered dealer could be accepted provided such dealers got themselves registered before 31.12.94. As in the present case, it is an admitted position that the suppliers were not registered upto 31.12.94, I consider that a correct view has been taken by the 1d.

Commissioner of Central Excise (Appels). The matter does not call for any interference. As a result, the appeal filed by the party is rejected. Cross objections are also disposed of accordingly.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties M/S. Vindhya Enterprises vs Cce, Raipur Same Subject Service Tax