The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Sun-up Botanics (Pvt) Ltd.

The Assistant Commissioner of vs Sun-up Botanics (Pvt) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Decided Dec 18, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/27026

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/27026
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided On: Dec 18, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Assistant Commissioner of

Respondent

Sun-up Botanics (Pvt) Ltd.

Excerpt

.....the supplier has issued the invoice without authentication by the superintendent of central excise. when this lapse was pointed out by the range authorities at hyderabad, the invoice was sent to the jurisdiction superintendent, and the range superintendent has authenticated the invoice after verifying. they further submitted that they have entered the particulars of the invoice (75 kgs of allethrin tech) in the form iv register vide page no. 430 on 8.7.97 i.e. within one month of the date of issue of the invoice. the details were not entered in rg 23 a part i/ part ii as they thought that it is not good to enter the details in rg part i/ part ii as the subject matter is in dispute. they maintained that the total material was consumed during the manufacture of their final product. 5. since the appellants could not take the modvat credit in rg 23 a part ii due to the objections raised by the department, the denial of the modvat credit in terms of rule 57g(5) by invoking six months' time limit is not justified particularly when the receipt of 75 kgs of allethrin was entered in form iv register maintained by the appellants well within one month of the date of issue of the impugned invoice. the impugned order passed by the assistant commissioner is not sustainable." since the issue has bene properly considered and analysed by the commissioner (appeals), i do not find any reason to interfere with the order. accordingly, appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order No. 197/2000(H-I)CE dated 25.10.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Centra Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad. Matter is posted to hear the stay petition. On going through the issue involved herein, I find that the matter itself can be disposed off. Accordingly, stay application filed by the revenue is hereby rejected and I proceed to pass the final order. The Department has come in appeal on the ground that the appellant could not take the credit beyond the six months time from the date of availing the credit. I find that the issue involved herein has been properly considered and analysed by the Commissioner (appeals) as can be from the Para 4 & 5 of the said order.

"4. I find that the Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order ex-part without hearing the appellants. Such an order, being violative of the principles of the natural justice, is bad in law and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. As regards the merits of the case, the appellants have contended that their application for availing modvat credit on the invoice No. 064 dt.

27.6.97 issued by M/s Hoechst Schering AgroEvo Ltd., was rejected in view of lack of authentication by the Superintendent of Central Excise, vide letter No.OC 789/98 dt. 6.1.98. They submitted that the supplier has issued the invoice without authentication by the Superintendent of Central Excise. When this lapse was pointed out by the Range authorities at Hyderabad, the invoice was sent to the jurisdiction Superintendent, and the Range Superintendent has authenticated the invoice after verifying. They further submitted that they have entered the particulars of the invoice (75 KGs of allethrin Tech) in the Form IV register vide page No. 430 on 8.7.97 i.e. within one month of the date of issue of the invoice. The details were not entered in RG 23 A Part I/ Part II as they thought that it is not good to enter the details in RG Part I/ Part II as the subject matter is in dispute. They maintained that the total material was consumed during the manufacture of their final product.

5. Since the appellants could not take the modvat credit in RG 23 A Part II due to the objections raised by the Department, the denial of the modvat credit in terms of Rule 57G(5) by invoking six months' time limit is not justified particularly when the receipt of 75 Kgs of allethrin was entered in Form IV Register maintained by the appellants well within one month of the date of issue of the impugned invoice. The impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is not sustainable." Since the issue has bene properly considered and analysed by the Commissioner (Appeals), I do not find any reason to interfere with the order. Accordingly, appeal filed by the Department is hereby dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT · 2001 Same Parties The Assistant Commissioner of vs Sun-up Botanics (Pvt) Ltd. Same Subject Excise