Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

M/S. Devidayal Industries Ltd and Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export)

M/S. Devidayal Industries Ltd and vs Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 28, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/23425

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M/S. Devidayal Industries Ltd and

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Excerpt

1. on hearing both sides on the stay application, it appeared that the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. this was done by granting waiver of predeposit of duty of rs.6,40,170/- and penalty of rs.30,000/-.2. the duty was confirmed and the penalty was imposed by the commissioner in the belief that the appellants had contravened the provisions of notification no. 203/92 cus inasmuch as in the production of export goods modvat credit had been availed of. the appellants raised the following contentions:- [1] being transferee license holders they are not liable for the alleged frauds of the transferer.[2] they are in a possession of the certificates of reversal of the excise duty.3. in dealing with an identical case reported in 1999 (112) elt 835 (tribunal) [dabur india limited vs. commissioner of central excise,] the tribunal had held that where extended period is invoked under section 28(1) of the act, it had to be shown that the fraud, misrepresentation etc. had been made by the importer with intent to defraud. in the case of transfer of licencee the transferer and therefore the extended period could not be invoked against the transferee licence holder. but in this case we would rather that the commissioner examine the evidence that the modvat credit taken was reversed.4. the appeal is allowed. the proceedings are remanded back to the jurisdictional commissioner. he will examine the examine the evidence of reversal put forth by the present appellants. he shall also take into account the judgement referred to above and give a considered judgement.

Full Judgment

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, it appeared that the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.6,40,170/- and penalty of Rs.30,000/-.

2. The duty was confirmed and the penalty was imposed by the Commissioner in the belief that the appellants had contravened the provisions of Notification No. 203/92 Cus inasmuch as in the production of export goods modvat credit had been availed of. The appellants raised the following contentions:- [1] Being transferee license holders they are not liable for the alleged frauds of the transferer.

[2] They are in a possession of the certificates of reversal of the excise duty.

3. In dealing with an identical case reported in 1999 (112) ELT 835 (Tribunal) [Dabur India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,] the Tribunal had held that where extended period is invoked under Section 28(1) of the Act, it had to be shown that the fraud, misrepresentation etc. had been made by the importer with intent to defraud. In the case of transfer of licencee the transferer and therefore the extended period could not be invoked against the transferee licence holder. But in this case we would rather that the Commissioner examine the evidence that the modvat credit taken was reversed.

4. The appeal is allowed. The proceedings are remanded back to the jurisdictional Commissioner. He will examine the examine the evidence of reversal put forth by the present appellants. He shall also take into account the judgement referred to above and give a considered judgement.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial