Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Videocon Appliances Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Videocon Appliances Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 28, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25987

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/25987
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Sep 28, 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

Videocon Appliances Ltd.

Excerpt

.....central excise rule, 1944. credit of rs.4,96,929.29 was disallowed by the assistant commissioner on the ground that (a) the gate passes were issued after 1.4.94 when invoice system had came into existence. (b) that the invoices were issued by a manufacturer while credit taken on the strength of invoices issued by a manufacturer while credit taken on the strength of invoices issued by a manufacturer while credit taken on the strength of invoices issued by importer. (c) that chapter heading of the tariff was correct. the commissioner (appeals) set aside the order of the assistant commissioner holding that original copy was available, that the manufacturer was also the importer and therefore the invoice was valid and that the defect of not mentioning the chapter heading of the tariff was also rectified subsequently. as regards credit availed on the strength of gate passes issued after 1.4.94 he upheld the rejection. the present appeal by the revenue seeks to challenge the extension of credit. it is the contention of the ld.dr that the invoice issued by the manufacturer is not valid duty paying document in terms of rule 57g(2) and further that invoice did not contain all the details of particulars as set out in notification no.15/94 which is required for treating the document as valid for availing credit. the ld. counsel points out that the commissioner (appeals) has satisfied himself after examining original invoice and after accepting the contention that the person issued the invoice was importer as well as manufacturer and the commissioner (appeals) also found that the defect existing earlier in the documents were subsequently set right.since all the objections for extension of credit have been met by the respondent as seen from the impugned order, there is no reason for interfering with the order of the commissioner (appeals) therefore i uphold the same and reject the appeal of the revenue. the cross objection filed by the respondents against the denial of credit.....

Full Judgment

1. The respondents herein who are manufactures of washing machine, refrigerators, air-conditioners etc. avail of modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rule, 1944. Credit of Rs.4,96,929.29 was disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that (a) the gate passes were issued after 1.4.94 when invoice system had came into existence. (b) That the invoices were issued by a manufacturer while credit taken on the strength of invoices issued by a manufacturer while credit taken on the strength of invoices issued by a manufacturer while credit taken on the strength of invoices issued by importer. (c) That chapter heading of the Tariff was correct. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner holding that original copy was available, that the manufacturer was also the importer and therefore the invoice was valid and that the defect of not mentioning the chapter heading of the tariff was also rectified subsequently. As regards credit availed on the strength of gate passes issued after 1.4.94 he upheld the rejection. The present appeal by the Revenue seeks to challenge the extension of credit. It is the contention of the Ld.

DR that the invoice issued by the manufacturer is not valid duty paying document in terms of Rule 57G(2) and further that invoice did not contain all the details of particulars as set out in Notification No.15/94 which is required for treating the document as valid for availing credit. The Ld. Counsel points out that the Commissioner (Appeals) has satisfied himself after examining original invoice and after accepting the contention that the person issued the invoice was importer as well as manufacturer and the Commissioner (Appeals) also found that the defect existing earlier in the documents were subsequently set right.

Since all the objections for extension of credit have been met by the respondent as seen from the impugned order, there is no reason for interfering with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) therefore I uphold the same and reject the appeal of the Revenue. The Cross objection filed by the respondents against the denial of credit on gate passes issued after 1.4.94 are also dismissed since w.e.f. 1.4.94 gate pass system came in existence and invoice was the only document valid for availment of credit after 1.4.1994.

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