Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Marine Electricals

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Marine Electricals

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 20, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25835

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/25835
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Sep 20, 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

Marine Electricals

Excerpt

1. mr. k.b. shetty, who represented the respondent is not found to have any qualification required to appear before this tribunal as an authorised representative. i have therefore declined to hear him.2. in the order impugned in this appeal, the commissioner (appeals) has held that the respondent was not entitled to take credit prior to 22.6.1994 on a gate pass which was issued by the manufacturer on 23.12.1993, and endorsed by the consignee on some unspecified date, was in accordance with law. this is challenged in this appeal by the commissioner.3. the ground in the appeal is that by application of the provisions of notification 16/94, the credit would not be taken on such endorsed gate pass.4. the commissioner (appeals) has gone by the decision of the tribunal in moosa haji patrawala pvt ltd v. cce 1996 (83) elt 620. this decision had concluded, after considering notification 16/94, that credit taken prior to 30.6.1994 on a gate pass which was issued on or before 30.3.1994 but endorsed later is valid. the ratio of that decision will apply to the facts before me.

Full Judgment

1. Mr. K.B. Shetty, who represented the respondent is not found to have any qualification required to appear before this Tribunal as an authorised representative. I have therefore declined to hear him.

2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the respondent was not entitled to take credit prior to 22.6.1994 on a gate pass which was issued by the manufacturer on 23.12.1993, and endorsed by the consignee on some unspecified date, was in accordance with law. This is challenged in this appeal by the Commissioner.

3. The ground in the appeal is that by application of the provisions of notification 16/94, the credit would not be taken on such endorsed gate pass.

4. The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone by the decision of the Tribunal in Moosa Haji Patrawala Pvt Ltd v. CCE 1996 (83) ELT 620. This decision had concluded, after considering notification 16/94, that credit taken prior to 30.6.1994 on a gate pass which was issued on or before 30.3.1994 but endorsed later is valid. The ratio of that decision will apply to the facts before me.

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