Gujarat Composite Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Gujarat Composite Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs and

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 07, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/26934

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/26934
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Dec 07, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gujarat Composite Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs and

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(80)ECC415

Excerpt

.....1998. he did not rely upon the decision in the case of ultra marine & pigments ltd. 1996 (84) elt 223 on the very same issue as he found that in that case the goods cleared for export were properly identified while in this case it is not identifiable and the payment of duty was vouched safe by the certificate of the range superintendent in that case.3. i find that this is a curable defect and that necessary enquiries would have got made from the range superintendent who issued the rule 57e certificate; such curable defects cannot deprive the appellant from the availment of substantive benefit of modvat credit. in any case the appellant have obtained a certificate from the range superintendent who is an officer of the revenue department and he was required to issue the certificate after due satisfaction of the nature of the good and the duty payment particulars that he has certified. in case he has not used the correct proforma he could be asked to substantiate and correct the same. the entire episode did not call for any penalty whatsoever on the appellant company.4. i would therefore set aside the order and remand the matter back to the original authority to satisfy itself after getting the verification reports from the concerned range superintendent who issued the 57e certificate regarding the duty paid nature of the goods and thereafter grant the same. the penalty is any case is not called for.

Full Judgment

1. When the matter was called the registry placed before me a letter, stating that the issue may be decided on merits as the appellant do not want to be heard in person. Another letter indicated, that the duty amount of modvat credit as directed has already been deposited by TR-6 challans dated 20/12/1999 and 27/04/2001 received in the bank on 29/12/1999 and 30/04/2000 respectively. With the consent of DR's side, the appeal is taken up for disposal.

2. From the record, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied credit on 57E(5) certificate issued by the proper officer, only on the ground that no certificate had been produced by the appellant of the supplier of the goods to co-relate the goods to the AR-4, to establish identity of the goods and its proper accounting by M/s. L&T, inasmuch as whether the goods supplied by them were in fact out of the AR-4 from which the diversion for home consumption was made. He also observed that M/s. L&T has not recovered duty from appellant till 27th November, 1998 as a letter indicated that duty paid was debited to the account of L&T only in November, 1998. He did not rely upon the decision in the case of Ultra Marine & Pigments Ltd. 1996 (84) ELT 223 on the very same issue as he found that in that case the goods cleared for export were properly identified while in this case it is not identifiable and the payment of duty was vouched safe by the certificate of the Range Superintendent in that case.

3. I find that this is a curable defect and that necessary enquiries would have got made from the Range Superintendent who issued the Rule 57E certificate; such curable defects cannot deprive the appellant from the availment of substantive benefit of modvat credit. In any case the appellant have obtained a certificate from the Range Superintendent who is an officer of the Revenue Department and he was required to issue the certificate after due satisfaction of the nature of the good and the duty payment particulars that he has certified. In case he has not used the correct proforma he could be asked to substantiate and correct the same. The entire episode did not call for any penalty whatsoever on the appellant company.

4. I would therefore set aside the order and remand the matter back to the original authority to satisfy itself after getting the verification reports from the concerned Range Superintendent who issued the 57E certificate regarding the duty paid nature of the goods and thereafter grant the same. The penalty is any case is not called for.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Gujarat Composite Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs and Same Subject Excise