Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. M/S. Asian Tubes Limited

Commissioner of Central Excise and vs M/S. Asian Tubes Limited

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 09, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/21344

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/21344
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Mar 09, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise and

Respondent

M/S. Asian Tubes Limited

Excerpt

this appeal from the revenue was argued by smt. arya. respondents were absent and not represented.2. the assessee took credit on certain inputs on 02/09/1993 but filed a declaration under rule 57h only on 20/09/1993. in this circumstances the credit was denied and penalty was imposed by the assistant collector. the commissioner (appeals) reversed this decision following the ratio of the judgement in medopharma laboratories 1995 (8) rlt 1005 and emc steelal ltd. 1993 (44) ecr 215. in the appeal from the revenue reliance is placed on supreme court judgement reported in 1991 (55) elt 454 where the supreme court had said that where the procedural lapses were likely to result in fraud or collusion they should not be condoned. no contest is made of the cited judgements.3. i have seen the citations. i find the facts before the medopharma laboratories and emc steelal ltd were identical. the ratio of both the judgements squarely applies. in a latter judgement (1996 (87) elt 726) also a similar view was held by a two member bench of this tribunal. it was not the revenue's case that the assessee's conduct had any ulterior motive. therefore the citation of the supreme court judgement does not assist the revenue.

Full Judgment

This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Smt. Arya. Respondents were absent and not represented.

2. The assessee took credit on certain inputs on 02/09/1993 but filed a declaration under Rule 57H only on 20/09/1993. In this circumstances the credit was denied and penalty was imposed by the Assistant Collector. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision following the ratio of the judgement in Medopharma Laboratories 1995 (8) RLT 1005 and EMC Steelal Ltd. 1993 (44) ECR 215. In the appeal from the Revenue reliance is placed on Supreme Court judgement reported in 1991 (55) ELT 454 where the Supreme Court had said that where the procedural lapses were likely to result in fraud or collusion they should not be condoned. No contest is made of the cited judgements.

3. I have seen the citations. I find the facts before the Medopharma Laboratories and EMC Steelal Ltd were identical. The ratio of both the judgements squarely applies. In a latter judgement (1996 (87) ELT 726) also a similar view was held by a two member bench of this Tribunal. It was not the Revenue's case that the assessee's conduct had any ulterior motive. Therefore the citation of the Supreme Court judgement does not assist the Revenue.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise and vs M/S. Asian Tubes Limited Same Subject Excise