Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S Narayan Processors

Commissioner of Central Excise vs M/S Narayan Processors

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 06, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/24844

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/24844
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Aug 06, 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

Respondent

M/S Narayan Processors

Excerpt

1. in the impugned order, the commissioner (appeals) has held that the respondents were entitled to cash refund of the credit accumulated in the modvat account, in relation to inputs that it used in the manufacture of processed fabrics which they exported.2. the reason that the commissioner (appeals) advances for the cash refund is that the respondents were not permitted by the departmental officers to use the credit towards payment of duty on the fabrics. the application questions this finding pointing out that there is no evidence in support of this conclusion.3. the representative of the respondents point to a letter of 30.7.1997 of the chairman of the board to the commissioner of central excise in support of the commissioner (appeals)' conclusion. this letter indicates to the commissioner that textile processing sector is one of the major evasion prone areas and asks him to ensure that, from august 1997 revenue realised from an independent processor does not work out less than rs 1.50 lakhs per working chamber installed.4. we agree that this letter does contain an element of arbitrariness in deciding how much duty should be paid by a processor but to jump from this letter to a conclusion that is resulted in modvat credit not being permitted to be utilised would require a process of reasoning and evidence which has not been submitted. prima facie therefore the facts are in favour of the department. the other contention of the representative that in some other cases, the stay applications filed by the department were dismissed by the tribunal is not relevant; those applications were dismissed because they contained no ground whatsoever supporting the prayer. the present application contains reasons.5. we therefore stay the operation of the impugned order pending disposal of the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the respondents were entitled to cash refund of the credit accumulated in the modvat account, in relation to inputs that it used in the manufacture of processed fabrics which they exported.

2. The reason that the Commissioner (Appeals) advances for the cash refund is that the respondents were not permitted by the departmental officers to use the credit towards payment of duty on the fabrics. The application questions this finding pointing out that there is no evidence in support of this conclusion.

3. The representative of the respondents point to a letter of 30.7.1997 of the Chairman of the Board to the Commissioner of Central Excise in support of the Commissioner (Appeals)' conclusion. This letter indicates to the Commissioner that textile processing sector is one of the major evasion prone areas and asks him to ensure that, from August 1997 revenue realised from an independent processor does not work out less than Rs 1.50 lakhs per working chamber installed.

4. We agree that this letter does contain an element of arbitrariness in deciding how much duty should be paid by a processor but to jump from this letter to a conclusion that is resulted in modvat credit not being permitted to be utilised would require a process of reasoning and evidence which has not been submitted. Prima facie therefore the facts are in favour of the department. The other contention of the representative that in some other cases, the stay applications filed by the department were dismissed by the Tribunal is not relevant; those applications were dismissed because they contained no ground whatsoever supporting the prayer. The present application contains reasons.

5. We therefore stay the operation of the impugned order pending disposal of the appeal.

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