Rumika Engineering Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Rumika Engineering Co. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 07, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25511

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/25511
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Sep 07, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rumika Engineering Co.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

1. the question involved in this appeal is whether a sum of rs. 4,45,291/- is entitled to be granted as modvat credit or not.2. the credit was taken in this case between november and december, 1992 and notice was issued on 16.11.1994. at the time of taking credit the seller's invoice as obtained by the assessee has been defaced which bears the signature of the jurisdictional superintendent. the question is whether it is barred by limitation or not.3. the time limit of six months and five years as envisaged under rule 57i(i)(ii) was introduced some time on 6.10.1988. the argument of the dr, namely the time limit was not provided under modvat rules is mis-placed. i therefore set aside the impugned order passed by the commissioner denying the modvat credit of rs. 4,45,291/-, and also imposition of penalty of rs. 20,000/-.

Full Judgment

1. The question involved in this appeal is whether a sum of Rs. 4,45,291/- is entitled to be granted as modvat credit or not.

2. The credit was taken in this case between November and December, 1992 and notice was issued on 16.11.1994. At the time of taking credit the seller's invoice as obtained by the assessee has been defaced which bears the signature of the jurisdictional Superintendent. The question is whether it is barred by limitation or not.

3. The time limit of six months and five years as envisaged under Rule 57I(i)(ii) was introduced some time on 6.10.1988. The argument of the DR, namely the time limit was not provided under Modvat Rules is mis-placed. I therefore set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner denying the modvat credit of Rs. 4,45,291/-, and also imposition of penalty of Rs. 20,000/-.

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