Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Deluxe Laxmi Paper Plast Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Deluxe Laxmi Paper Plast Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 30, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/26427

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/26427
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Oct 30, 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

Deluxe Laxmi Paper Plast Ltd.

Excerpt

1. in this case the department by filing the present appeal, objects to the extension of modvat credit of rs.23,545/- on the basis of invoice no.55 dt. 19.12.94 issued by a dealer who did not own a godown at his registered premises in view of the fact as per trade notice no. 72/94 dt. 8.12.94, dealer who has been registered should have proper business premises.2. on hearing both sides and noting that this is a requirement not of the rules, but of a trade notice, and further noting that invoice in question has been issued only 10 days after the issue of the trade notice, thus not giving sufficient time to dealers to acquire a godown, and further noting that technical breach of trade notice cannot a granted for denied of modvat credit i hold that the commissioner (appeals) rightly extended credit amount of the question, i uphold the impugned and reject the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. In this case the department by filing the present appeal, objects to the extension of modvat credit of Rs.23,545/- on the basis of invoice No.55 dt. 19.12.94 issued by a dealer who did not own a godown at his registered premises in view of the fact as per Trade Notice No. 72/94 dt. 8.12.94, dealer who has been registered should have proper business premises.

2. On hearing both sides and noting that this is a requirement not of the rules, but of a trade notice, and further noting that invoice in question has been issued only 10 days after the issue of the Trade Notice, thus not giving sufficient time to dealers to acquire a godown, and further noting that technical breach of trade notice cannot a granted for denied of modvat credit I hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly extended credit amount of the question, I uphold the impugned and reject the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Deluxe Laxmi Paper Plast Ltd. Same Subject Excise