Mech and Feb Indus. Vs. Cce

Mech and Feb Indus. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 12, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29312

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/29312
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Bajaj
Decided On: Nov 12, 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

Mech and Feb Indus.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(86)ECC107

Excerpt

.....of the asstt.commissioner disallowing the modvat credit to the appellants.2. in appeal no. e/1919/2002-nb(s), the modvat credit of rs. 47,136 had been disallowed to the appellants on the ground that the inputs were received by them from the manufacturer through the agent, and that the agent, m/s. mangalam steels, was not the authorised agent. the commissioner (appeals) had affirmed the order of the asstt.commissioner in this regard. but the record shows that the goods were directly received by the appellants from the manufacturer and the invoice was issued by the manufacturer in their name. all that was mentioned was that the supply was made through the agent. the invoice contained full particulars of the manufacturer, the amount of duty paid and the name of the appellants as purchaser of the goods. no defect in the form of the invoice had been pointed out. the receipt of the goods by the appellants and the duty paid character of those goods had not been also disputed. therefore, by mentioning the words 'through agent' in the invoice by the manufacturer, the invoice did not become, invalid under the law for the purpose of claiming modvat credit. the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) as such cannot be sustained and is set aside.in this appeal, the modvat credit of rs. 47,361 had been disallowed to the appellants which they took in april 1995 on the ground that the same had been taken on the invoice other than duplicate copy of invoice without proving the loss of the duplicate copy in transit. in my view, it has been rightly disallowed in view of the ratio laid down by the larger bench of the tribunal in the case of avis electronics v. cce, delhi, 2000 (117) elt 577, wherein it has been observed that credit on the original invoice can be taken only on proving the loss of the duplicate copy in transit and not otherwise. the appellants have not been able to prove the loss of the duplicate copy. therefore, the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals).....

Full Judgment

1. The above captioned two appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common Order-in-Appeal dated 8.5.2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original of the Asstt.

Commissioner disallowing the modvat credit to the appellants.

2. In Appeal No. E/1919/2002-NB(S), the modvat credit of Rs. 47,136 had been disallowed to the appellants on the ground that the inputs were received by them from the manufacturer through the agent, and that the agent, M/s. Mangalam Steels, was not the authorised agent. The Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed the order of the Asstt.

Commissioner in this regard. But the record shows that the goods were directly received by the appellants from the manufacturer and the invoice was issued by the manufacturer in their name. All that was mentioned was that the supply was made through the agent. The invoice contained full particulars of the manufacturer, the amount of duty paid and the name of the appellants as purchaser of the goods. No defect in the form of the invoice had been pointed out. The receipt of the goods by the appellants and the duty paid character of those goods had not been also disputed. Therefore, by mentioning the words 'through agent' in the invoice by the manufacturer, the invoice did not become, invalid under the law for the purpose of claiming modvat credit. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as such cannot be sustained and is set aside.

In this appeal, the modvat credit of Rs. 47,361 had been disallowed to the appellants which they took in April 1995 on the ground that the same had been taken on the invoice other than duplicate copy of invoice without proving the loss of the duplicate copy in transit. In my view, it has been rightly disallowed in view of the ratio laid down by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Avis Electronics v. CCE, Delhi, 2000 (117) ELT 577, wherein it has been observed that credit on the original invoice can be taken only on proving the loss of the duplicate copy in transit and not otherwise. The appellants have not been able to prove the loss of the duplicate copy. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is perfectly valid and is upheld.4. In view of the discussion made above, the Appeal No. E/1919/02-NB(S) of the appellants is accepted with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law, while Appeal No. E/1920/02-NB(S) of the appellants is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Mech and Feb Indus. vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge P Bajaj