Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Hybrid Electronic Systems Pvt.

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Hybrid Electronic Systems Pvt.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 29, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/23460

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/23460
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: May 29, 2001
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Respondent

Hybrid Electronic Systems Pvt.

Excerpt

1. the appeal is against the order of the commissioner (appeals) holding that the invoice dated 17.6.1996 issued by tecmark electronics pvt. ltd., ahmedabad was a valid document for taking credit.2. i have heard the departmental representative. the respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice issued and has not filed any written submission.3. in his order the commissioner (appeals) finds that the invoice contains all the details specified in notification 15/94. the appeal contends that a number of details which are required by the notification are missing. this required to be accepted. the invoice does not indicate the following: whether the dealer is registered or not, full name and address of the manufacturer and the jurisdictional officers of the manufacturer, the mode of despatch and details therof, name and address of officers having jurisdiction over the dealer.4. in the light of the above finding it is not possible to uphold the commissioner (appeals)'s finding. the appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside. the order of the assistant collector denying credit is restored.

Full Judgment

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the invoice dated 17.6.1996 issued by Tecmark Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad was a valid document for taking credit.

2. I have heard the departmental representative. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice issued and has not filed any written submission.

3. In his order the Commissioner (Appeals) finds that the invoice contains all the details specified in notification 15/94. The appeal contends that a number of details which are required by the notification are missing. This required to be accepted. The invoice does not indicate the following: whether the dealer is registered or not, full name and address of the manufacturer and the jurisdictional officers of the manufacturer, the mode of despatch and details therof, name and address of officers having jurisdiction over the dealer.

4. In the light of the above finding it is not possible to uphold the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside. The order of the Assistant Collector denying credit is restored.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Hybrid Electronic Systems ... Same Subject Land Acquisition