Michael and Michael Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Michael and Michael vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

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

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/26437

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/26437
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

Michael and Michael

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

this appeal was posted for admission. appellants have requested for cancellation of the hearing on the ground that the appeal was disposed of by commissioner (appeal) 2. it is clear that the appellants are under a wrong impression. the facts being clear this appeal is taken up for disposal.3. the appellants took modvat credit on the strength of extra copy of the invoices. at the material time duplicate copy of transporter was the modvatable document. the assistant collector ordered reversal.before the commissioner (appeals), it was claimed that the duplicate copy was misplaced. the original copy was available which could be taken on record. the commissioner (appeal) upheld the denial and hence the appeal.4. the appellant claimed that they have produced sufficient alternative evidence that the credit was available. it was claimed that the suppliers had given a certificate that the invoice was issued only to the present appellants. appellants have also filed an indemnity bond.5. in these circumstances i hold that the alternate evidence is sufficient to establish the claim of loss of modvatable copy. i therefore allow the appeal and remand the proceedings back to the jurisdictional assistant/deputy commissioner who will examine the documents relied upon and proceed to allow the credit.

Full Judgment

This appeal was posted for admission. Appellants have requested for cancellation of the hearing on the ground that the appeal was disposed of by Commissioner (Appeal) 2. It is clear that the appellants are under a wrong impression. The facts being clear this appeal is taken up for disposal.

3. The Appellants took Modvat credit on the strength of extra copy of the invoices. At the material time duplicate copy of transporter was the modvatable document. The Assistant Collector ordered reversal.

Before the Commissioner (Appeals), It was claimed that the duplicate copy was misplaced. The original copy was available which could be taken on record. The Commissioner (Appeal) upheld the denial and hence the appeal.

4. The appellant claimed that they have produced sufficient alternative evidence that the credit was available. It was claimed that the suppliers had given a certificate that the invoice was issued only to the present Appellants. Appellants have also filed an indemnity bond.

5. In these circumstances I hold that the alternate evidence is sufficient to establish the claim of loss of modvatable copy. I therefore allow the appeal and remand the proceedings back to the jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner who will examine the documents relied upon and proceed to allow the credit.

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