Leather and Trim Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Leather and Trim vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 25, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/23371

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/23371
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: May 25, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Leather and Trim

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

1. appeal taken up for disposal with consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. the appeal is against the order of the commissioner (appeals) holding that the appellant was not entitled to take modvat credit of the duty paid on seats for automobile which it cleared and returned after re-precessing, the seating having been found to be defective or substandard. the reason advanced by the commissioner (appeals) for denial of the credit is that the appellant did not file declaration, under rule 57g showing the defective seats manufactured by it to be inputs. he says that the declaration under rule 57g filed in the division office did not show these to be inputs.3. counsel for the appellant cites before me a declaration filed under rule 57g on 18.1.1998 showing rejected automobile seats to be inputs.the show cause notice has been issued for credit taken from april to july, 1998. ordinarily i would have accepted correctness of this declaration and decided the case. however, in the light of the specific finding of the commissioner (appeals) that the declaration that he called from the division office did not show rejected seats as inputs i am reluctant to do so. i am of the view that this matter may be re-examined by him. it is possible that the declaration dated 18.1.1998 has not been brought to his notice.4. accordingly i allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.the commissioner (appeals) shall give the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard on the question as to whether the returned seats were declared as inputs under rule 57g pass order in accordance with law.

Full Judgment

1. Appeal taken up for disposal with consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.

2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the appellant was not entitled to take modvat credit of the duty paid on seats for automobile which it cleared and returned after re-precessing, the seating having been found to be defective or substandard. The reason advanced by the Commissioner (Appeals) for denial of the credit is that the appellant did not file declaration, under Rule 57G showing the defective seats manufactured by it to be inputs. He says that the declaration under Rule 57G filed in the division office did not show these to be inputs.

3. Counsel for the appellant cites before me a declaration filed under Rule 57G on 18.1.1998 showing rejected automobile seats to be inputs.

The show cause notice has been issued for credit taken from April to July, 1998. Ordinarily I would have accepted correctness of this declaration and decided the case. However, in the light of the specific finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the declaration that he called from the division office did not show rejected seats as inputs I am reluctant to do so. I am of the view that this matter may be re-examined by him. It is possible that the declaration dated 18.1.1998 has not been brought to his notice.

4. Accordingly I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.

The Commissioner (Appeals) shall give the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard on the question as to whether the returned seats were declared as inputs under Rule 57G pass order in accordance with law.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Leather and Trim vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise