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.

Eltron India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Eltron India vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 02, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/26548

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
Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Eltron India

Advocate Shri. Biradar

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Legal References

Reported In
(2002)(150)ELT660Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....commissioner of central excise, mumbai-ii, made in order-in-original dated 22.10.1991. a show cause notice was issued charging the appellant that they had procured electrical resistance wires which is exclusively required and used in the manufacture of electric furnaces. however the appellant had utilised the modvat credit on the said input and utilised them for clearance for another product called fan guards. the rt12 for the period from 30.4.1986 to 25.4.1989 were duly assessed without any objection. the show cause notice was resisted and one of the points stressed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority is the supreme court decisions in the cases of kosan metal products and andaman timber industries. the adjudicating authority by the impugned order relies on the declarations filed by the assessee regarding inputs and final products and derives support for the same for confirmation of the demand. hence this appeal.2. shri biradar, learned counsel for the appellant, stresses the point that when the rt12 returns were assessed, the department cannot state that there has been willful evasion by the assessee. as against this, shri r.k. paradeshi, learned dr, strenuously argued that knowing full well that the final product was electric furnaces and the input was resistance wire, the appellant could not have utilised the same for the fan guards. therefore he states that there is a misutilisation of the modvat credit. the observation of the additional commissioner that the word "verification" has been mentioned in rt12 has to be seen in the light of admitted circumstances that there has been a provisional assessment and that the provisions of rule 9 and 49 has been followed.the department has not placed on record any evidence of insistence of the point in terms of rule 9 and 49. if that were to be so, if the case of the department is the provisional assessment the department ought to have put in a positive way when the assessment was finalised and only.....

Full Judgment

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision of the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II, made in Order-in-Original dated 22.10.1991. A show cause notice was issued charging the appellant that they had procured electrical resistance wires which is exclusively required and used in the manufacture of electric furnaces. However the appellant had utilised the modvat credit on the said input and utilised them for clearance for another product called fan guards. The RT12 for the period from 30.4.1986 to 25.4.1989 were duly assessed without any objection. The show cause notice was resisted and one of the points stressed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority is the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Kosan Metal Products and Andaman Timber Industries. The adjudicating authority by the impugned order relies on the declarations filed by the assessee regarding inputs and final products and derives support for the same for confirmation of the demand. Hence this appeal.

2. Shri Biradar, learned counsel for the appellant, stresses the point that when the RT12 returns were assessed, the department cannot state that there has been willful evasion by the assessee. As against this, Shri R.K. Paradeshi, learned DR, strenuously argued that knowing full well that the final product was electric furnaces and the input was resistance wire, the appellant could not have utilised the same for the fan guards. Therefore he states that there is a misutilisation of the modvat credit. The observation of the Additional Commissioner that the word "verification" has been mentioned in RT12 has to be seen in the light of admitted circumstances that there has been a provisional assessment and that the provisions of Rule 9 and 49 has been followed.

The department has not placed on record any evidence of insistence of the point in terms of Rule 9 and 49. If that were to be so, if the case of the department is the provisional assessment the department ought to have put in a positive way when the assessment was finalised and only after definite final assessment notice of demand could have been issued. I am therefore the view that the stand taken by the adjudicating authority does not have any legs to stand. Hence accepting the case of the appellant, I allow the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.

3. Appeal stands allowed the consequential relief, if any, according to law.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial