Commissioner of Central Exise Vs. M/S. Parimal Engineering

Commissioner of Central Exise vs M/S. Parimal Engineering

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

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/21347

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/21347
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Mar 09, 2001
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 Exise

Respondent

M/S. Parimal Engineering

Excerpt

.....the invoices in question are issued by dealers whoa re registered with the central excise department. the dealers have issued invoice no. 42 dated 24.9.1994 to 57 dated 26.1994 on perusal of the invoices it is observed that these invoices contain only range/division/collectorate and rate of duty of the goods cleared by original manufacturer. however, these invoices do not indicate quantity value and amount of duty paid on the goods cleared by original manufacture as alleged in the show cause notice. in absence of these details the relevant invoices cannot be held as proper invoices for the purpose of availment of modvat credit. in view of this, the following order is passed." "i have also perused the relevant 10 copies (xerox copies) and find that the assistant commissioner's observation in the impugned order are not specific and tend to be more generic in nature. i find that the said invoices give details such as original manufacturer, range, commissionerate of the manufacture, description and identification mark of the product, sub-heading of the product, manufacturer's invoice number and date, quantity, assessable value, rate of duty and the amount of duty involved." 4. in the appeal memorandum the revenue has given specific shortcomings in each of the concerned invoices.5. i find that both the lower authorities have very clearly recorded their findings on the invoices. these are diametrically opposite views.only one of them can be correct. the tribunal is not the place where the invoices would be subjected to scrutiny. in view of the situation the appeal is allowed and the proceedings are remitted back to the assistant/deputy commissioner. he shall invite the assessees for the hearing and then pass an order taking each of the concerned invoices separately and examining whether the invoices are defective or otherwise and then give his finding on the availability of the credit.

Full Judgment

1. On hearing Shri Jain for the Revenue it was felt that the appeal could be taken up for decision. Respondents were not present in spite of notice.

2. The issue involved in the present case in admissibility of modvat credit. The Assistant Commissioner found the invoices covering the inputs to be defective. He made the following observation: "I have gone through the relevant invoices. The invoices in question are issued by dealers whoa re registered with the Central Excise department. The dealers have issued invoice No. 42 dated 24.9.1994 to 57 dated 26.1994 on perusal of the invoices it is observed that these invoices contain only Range/Division/Collectorate and rate of duty of the goods cleared by original manufacturer. However, these invoices do not indicate quantity value and amount of duty paid on the goods cleared by original manufacture as alleged in the show cause notice. In absence of these details the relevant invoices cannot be held as proper invoices for the purpose of availment of modvat credit. In view of this, the following order is passed." "I have also perused the relevant 10 copies (xerox copies) and find that the Assistant Commissioner's observation in the impugned order are not specific and tend to be more generic in nature. I find that the said invoices give details such as original manufacturer, range, commissionerate of the manufacture, description and identification mark of the product, sub-heading of the product, manufacturer's invoice number and date, quantity, assessable value, rate of duty and the amount of duty involved." 4. In the appeal memorandum the Revenue has given specific shortcomings in each of the concerned invoices.

5. I find that both the lower authorities have very clearly recorded their findings on the invoices. These are diametrically opposite views.

Only one of them can be correct. The Tribunal is not the place where the invoices would be subjected to scrutiny. In view of the situation the appeal is allowed and the proceedings are remitted back to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner. He shall invite the assessees for the hearing and then pass an order taking each of the concerned invoices separately and examining whether the invoices are defective or otherwise and then give his finding on the availability of the credit.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Exise vs M/S. Parimal Engineering Same Subject Service Tax