Neon Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Neon Laboratories Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 22, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/20533

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/20533
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: G Srinivasan
Decided On: Jan 22, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Neon Laboratories Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(74)ECC224

Excerpt

this is an application for stay of collection of duty of rs. 7,74,332 and the penalty of rs. 75,000. the question involved is about claiming of the modvat in respect of the inputs procured from 100% eou (e.o.unit). the appellate authority and the adjudicating authority had held credit is on the basis of duty is paid by the eou. which should be the basis of calculation in respect of modvat in terms of section 12 of the customs act? this is because the supplier of the raw material was an eou. the matter is not res integra. larger bench decision in the case of vikram lspat v. commissioner of central excise mumbai 2000 (20) elt 800 (tribunal-lb) has been given in favour of the assessee where the tribunal upheld the order passed by the tribunal in its second judgment in the case of commissioner v. weston electronics ltd. 1997 (95) elt 624. in view thereof there is a strong prima facie case in favour of the appellants. i therefore waive payment of the duty and penalty imposed and stay the recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal.

Full Judgment

This is an application for stay of collection of duty of Rs. 7,74,332 and the penalty of Rs. 75,000. The question involved is about claiming of the modvat in respect of the inputs procured from 100% EOU (E.O.unit). The appellate authority and the adjudicating authority had held credit is on the basis of duty is paid by the EOU. Which should be the basis of calculation in respect of Modvat in terms of Section 12 of the Customs Act? This is because the supplier of the raw material was an EOU. The matter is not res integra. Larger Bench decision in the case of Vikram lspat v. Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai 2000 (20) ELT 800 (Tribunal-LB) has been given in favour of the assessee where the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Tribunal in its second judgment in the case of Commissioner v. Weston Electronics Ltd. 1997 (95) ELT 624. In view thereof there is a strong prima facie case in favour of the appellants. I therefore waive payment of the duty and penalty imposed and stay the recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Neon Laboratories Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge G Srinivasan