A.M.A. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

A.M.A. Enterprises vs Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 20, 2003

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/30346

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/30346
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J T J.H.
Decided On: Mar 20, 2003
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A.M.A. Enterprises

Respondent

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(159)ELT797Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the appellants took credit on the basis of a dealer's invoice. the credit was denied on the ground that the dealer was not registered. in addition, a penalty was also imposed upon the assessee. the appellants do not challenge the denial of modvat credit but question the imposition of penalty on the ground that the dealer's mistake cannot become a ground for imposition of penalty upon them.2. i find the stand of the assessee to be correct. the denial of credit, which was not an account of any mistake of theirs, has to be borne by them. there being no culpability on the part of the assessee in the proceeding, the orders of penalty do not sustain.

Full Judgment

1. The appellants took credit on the basis of a dealer's invoice. The credit was denied on the ground that the dealer was not registered. In addition, a penalty was also imposed upon the assessee. The appellants do not challenge the denial of Modvat credit but question the imposition of penalty on the ground that the dealer's mistake cannot become a ground for imposition of penalty upon them.

2. I find the stand of the assessee to be correct. The denial of credit, which was not an account of any mistake of theirs, has to be borne by them. There being no culpability on the part of the assessee in the proceeding, the orders of penalty do not sustain.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties A.M.A. Enterprises vs Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Same Subject Excise Same Judge J T J.H.