Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pidilite Industries Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Pidilite Industries Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 02, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/26540

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
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

Pidilite Industries Ltd.

Excerpt

1. the revenue has filed the above appeals against orders of the commissioner (appeals) by which he has extended modvat credit taken by the respondents herein on the strength of endorsed bill of entry. the objection of the revenue is that such endorsed bills of entry are not accompanied by a subsidiary gate pass. on hearing both sides and perusing the documents in question i find that the bills of entry on the strength of which the respondents have taken credit on inputs imported by m/s. hetampuria textiles and sold entirely to the respondents directly from the customs dock area (sic) contained the endorsement that importers have not availed of modvat credit on the said inputs and that the entire consignment has been cleared to the respondents. in these circumstances the circular no. 179/13/96-cx dt.29.2.1996 of the ministry of finance wherein it is setout that the imported goods can be directly transferred from the customs dock area to a manufacturer by the importer on a declaration made on the reverse of the bill of entry that consignments are being delivered to the unit for availing credit and endorsed by the proper officer of customs for enabling the manufacturing unit to avail credit, is directly attracted.therefore i see no infirmity in the order of the lower appellate authority, which is correct in law and accordingly i uphold the same and reject the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The revenue has filed the above appeals against orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he has extended modvat credit taken by the respondents herein on the strength of endorsed bill of entry. The objection of the Revenue is that such endorsed bills of entry are not accompanied by a subsidiary gate pass. On hearing both sides and perusing the documents in question I find that the bills of entry on the strength of which the respondents have taken credit on inputs imported by M/s. Hetampuria Textiles and sold entirely to the respondents directly from the Customs Dock area (sic) contained the endorsement that importers have not availed of modvat credit on the said inputs and that the entire consignment has been cleared to the respondents. In these circumstances the Circular No. 179/13/96-CX dt.

29.2.1996 of the Ministry of Finance wherein it is setout that the imported goods can be directly transferred from the Customs dock area to a manufacturer by the importer on a declaration made on the reverse of the bill of entry that consignments are being delivered to the unit for availing credit and endorsed by the Proper Officer of Customs for enabling the manufacturing unit to avail credit, is directly attracted.

Therefore I see no infirmity in the order of the lower appellate authority, which is correct in law and accordingly I uphold the same and reject the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial