Tarchem Products Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Tarchem Products vs Commissioner of Customs and

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 19, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/26323

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/26323
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Oct 19, 2001
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Tarchem Products

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs and

Excerpt

1. the appeal is against the order of the collector (appeals) denying the modvat credit taken on alkyl benzene.2. appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. i have perused the appeal and heard the departmental representative.3. the collector (appeals) has held that liner alkyl benzene at the relevant time was not included in the table to notification 177/86 issued under rule 57a and specified the inputs and final products for the purpose of taking modvat credit. he has therefore denied the credit.4. the appeal seeks to claim that the product was in fact specified in the notification, but i am unable to find anything in the appeal that supports this claim. i am not able to find, after reading the grounds of appeal, that the collector (appeals)'s contention that the product was not specified in the notification is incorrect.5. the appeal also claims that the notice dated 18.8.1987 to recover the credit taken on 16.2.1987 was barred by limitation. the judgment of the supreme court cce v. raghuvar (india) ltd. 2000 (118) elt 311 that prior to its amendment in 1988, when a time limit of six months or in appropriate case for five years for issuing notice to recover wrongly taken credit introduced rule 57i, there was no time limit prescribed and therefore no period of limitation could apply for recovery. the notice was therefore not barred by limitation.

Full Judgment

1. The appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals) denying the modvat credit taken on alkyl benzene.

2. Appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. I have perused the appeal and heard the departmental representative.

3. The collector (Appeals) has held that liner alkyl benzene at the relevant time was not included in the table to notification 177/86 issued under Rule 57A and specified the inputs and final products for the purpose of taking modvat credit. He has therefore denied the credit.

4. The appeal seeks to claim that the product was in fact specified in the notification, but I am unable to find anything in the appeal that supports this claim. I am not able to find, after reading the grounds of appeal, that the Collector (Appeals)'s contention that the product was not specified in the notification is incorrect.

5. The appeal also claims that the notice dated 18.8.1987 to recover the credit taken on 16.2.1987 was barred by limitation. The judgment of the Supreme Court CCE v. Raghuvar (India) Ltd. 2000 (118) ELT 311 that prior to its amendment in 1988, when a time limit of six months or in appropriate case for five years for issuing notice to recover wrongly taken credit introduced Rule 57I, there was no time limit prescribed and therefore no period of limitation could apply for recovery. The notice was therefore not barred by limitation.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Tarchem Products vs Commissioner of Customs and Same Subject Service Tax