Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Gan Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Gan Pharmaceuticals P. 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/26432

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/26432
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Oct 30, 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

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Respondent

Gan Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.

Excerpt

1. the above appeal arises out of the order of the commissioner (appeals) extending modvat credit on the strength of subsidiary certificates showing delivery of the inputs covered thereunder the respondents, even though there was no specific endorsement by m/s.warren pharmaceuticals pvt. ltd. in favour of the respondents.2. on hearing both sides and noting that the subsidiary certificate themselves show that the inputs were delivered to the respondents and further noting that there is no dispute regarding duty paid of input (sic) in question i hold that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) extending modvat credit on the strength of subsidiary certificates showing delivery of the inputs covered thereunder the respondents, even though there was no specific endorsement by M/s.

Warren Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the respondents.

2. On hearing both sides and noting that the subsidiary certificate themselves show that the inputs were delivered to the respondents and further noting that there is no dispute regarding duty paid of input (SIC) in question I hold that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.

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