Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Gyro Lab Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Gyro Lab Pvt. Ltd.

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

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/26325

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/26325
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Oct 19, 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

Gyro Lab Pvt. Ltd.

Excerpt

1. notices issued to gyro lab pvt. ltd., the respondent, proposed denial of the modvat credit that it had taken on the ground that the invoices on which it took credit were issued by unregistered dealers and therefore not valid. the assistant collector, in his order, denied the credit on a different ground, that the invoices were not in accordance with the proforma prescribed by the authority.2. the assessee appealed the order. the commissioner (appeals) allowed the appeal, noting that the basis for the denial by the assistant collector of the credit was not specified in the notice issued to the assessee. this order is being appealed by the department.3. the department's appeal again emphasizes that the invoices do not contain such particulars as name and address of the jurisdictional collector, division, range etc. and name of the supplier. these grounds, as i have noted, were not in the show cause notice issued to the assessee and cannot now be pressed into service. i therefore see no reason to interfere with the commissioner (appeals)'s order.

Full Judgment

1. Notices issued to Gyro Lab Pvt. Ltd., the respondent, proposed denial of the modvat credit that it had taken on the ground that the invoices on which it took credit were issued by unregistered dealers and therefore not valid. The Assistant Collector, in his order, denied the credit on a different ground, that the invoices were not in accordance with the proforma prescribed by the authority.

2. The assessee appealed the order. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, noting that the basis for the denial by the Assistant Collector of the credit was not specified in the notice issued to the assessee. This order is being appealed by the department.

3. The department's appeal again emphasizes that the invoices do not contain such particulars as name and address of the jurisdictional Collector, division, range etc. and name of the supplier. These grounds, as I have noted, were not in the show cause notice issued to the assessee and cannot now be pressed into service. I therefore see no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order.

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