Frick India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Frick India Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 29, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29206

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/29206
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Chacko
Decided On: Oct 29, 2002
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

Frick India Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(86)ECC153

Excerpt

.....modvat credit was deniable on the above ground has since been settled by the tribunal's larger bench in cce, ahmedabad v. satyen dyes 2002 (79) ecc 354 (ib): 2001 (47) rlt 669 (tri-lb), wherein it was held that where the inputs were duty-paid and received by the assessee in their factory and utilized in the manufacture of their final product, modvat credit on such inputs was not liable to be denied on the ground that the invoice under cover of which the inputs were received by the assessee was bearing hand-written serial no. instead of a printed one.3. ld. dr, on the other hand, submits that the decision of the larger bench is against the express provisions of rule 57g and rule 57gg of the central excise rules. 1944. he, further, relies on the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in cce, ahmd. v. cadila labs. pvt. ltd. 2002 (82) ecc 709 (sc), wherein the apex court denied the benefit of an exemption notification to the assessee on the ground that the procedure under rule 56a of the central excise rules was not followed by them.4. the short question which arises in this appeal stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the tribunal's larger bench in satyen dyes (supra).5. i have perused the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court cited by the ld. dr and i find that the apex court found non-compliance, by the assessee, with a substantial condition laid down under rule 57a and accordingly, denied the benefit of exemption to them. the instant case is not comparable to the case considered by the apex court. whether invoice contained pre-printed serial number of only hand-written serial number in the instant case is a trivial aspect, which has nothing in common with the aspect of non-fulfilment of substantial condition under rule 56a by the assessee in the case considered by the supreme court.6. following the larger bench decision, i set aside the order of the lower appellate authority and allow this appeal.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal of the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing Modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 29,334 to the appellants on the ground that the invoices on the strength of which the credit was taken did not bear pre-printed Serial Number. The Serial Number of the invoice was hand-written.

2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the question whether Modvat credit was deniable on the above ground has since been settled by the Tribunal's Larger Bench in CCE, Ahmedabad v. Satyen Dyes 2002 (79) ECC 354 (IB): 2001 (47) RLT 669 (Tri-LB), wherein it was held that where the inputs were duty-paid and received by the assessee in their factory and utilized in the manufacture of their final product, Modvat credit on such inputs was not liable to be denied on the ground that the invoice under cover of which the inputs were received by the assessee was bearing hand-written Serial No. instead of a printed one.

3. Ld. DR, on the other hand, submits that the decision of the Larger Bench is against the express provisions of Rule 57G and Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules. 1944. He, further, relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE, Ahmd. v. Cadila Labs. Pvt. Ltd. 2002 (82) ECC 709 (SC), wherein the Apex Court denied the benefit of an exemption Notification to the assessee on the ground that the procedure under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules was not followed by them.

4. The short question which arises in this appeal stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal's Larger Bench in Satyen Dyes (supra).

5. I have perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the Ld. DR and I find that the Apex Court found non-compliance, by the assessee, with a substantial condition laid down under Rule 57A and accordingly, denied the benefit of exemption to them. The instant case is not comparable to the case considered by the Apex Court. Whether invoice contained pre-printed Serial Number of only hand-written Serial Number in the instant case is a trivial aspect, which has nothing in common with the aspect of non-fulfilment of substantial condition under Rule 56A by the assessee in the case considered by the Supreme Court.

6. Following the Larger Bench decision, I set aside the order of the lower appellate authority and allow this appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Frick India Ltd. vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge P Chacko