S.A. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

S.A. Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 25, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/30388

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/30388
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, a T V.K.
Decided On: Mar 25, 2003
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S.A. Industries

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(159)ELT717TriDel

Excerpt

1. all the three appeals are filed against the same impugned order, therefore, the appeals are being taken together.2. brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were availing the benefit of notification no. 58/97-ce., dated 30-8-1997. appellants availed the benefit of deemed credit on the basis of above mentioned notification on the strength of invoices issued by the manufacturer of the inputs.show cause notices were issued to the appellants on the ground that as per clause (iv) of the notification no, 58/97-c.e., dated 30-8-1997, the appropriate duty has not been paid by the manufacturer of the goods. adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. the appellants filed appeal and the commissioner (appeals) allowed the modvat credit taken on the strength of invoices issued by m/s. quality steel and in respect of other invoices, the benefit of deemed credit was denied.4. the contention of the appellants is that the credit has been taken on the strength of invoices issued by the following firms : 5. the contention of the appellants is that the above-mentioned manufacturer of the inputs filed appeals against the orders of the commissioner whereby their duty liabilities were fixed under the compounded leavy scheme and the tribunal vide final order nos.a/509-522/2000-nb (db), dated 20-6-2000, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority in respect of some manufacturer and vide final order nos. a/718-722/2001/nb(db), dated 20-9-2001, 2001 (136) e.l.t.1047 (t) allowed the appeals filed by some of the manufacturer. the contention of the appellants is that as the demand is based on the ground that the appropriate duty has not been paid by the manufacturer of the goods and in the appeals filed by the manufacturer of the inputs, the matter was remanded or allowed. therefore, the appellants are entitled for the deemed credit in view of the notification.6. in the appeal filed by the revenue, the contention of the.....

Full Judgment

1. All the three appeals are filed against the same impugned order, therefore, the appeals are being taken together.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were availing the benefit of Notification No. 58/97-CE., dated 30-8-1997. Appellants availed the benefit of deemed credit on the basis of above mentioned notification on the strength of invoices issued by the manufacturer of the inputs.

Show cause notices were issued to the appellants on the ground that as per Clause (iv) of the Notification No, 58/97-C.E., dated 30-8-1997, the appropriate duty has not been paid by the manufacturer of the goods. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. The appellants filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Modvat credit taken on the strength of invoices issued by M/s. Quality Steel and in respect of other invoices, the benefit of deemed credit was denied.

4. The contention of the appellants is that the credit has been taken on the strength of invoices issued by the following firms : 5. The contention of the appellants is that the above-mentioned manufacturer of the inputs filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner whereby their duty liabilities were fixed under the Compounded Leavy Scheme and the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos.

A/509-522/2000-NB (DB), dated 20-6-2000, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority in respect of some manufacturer and vide Final Order Nos. A/718-722/2001/NB(DB), dated 20-9-2001, 2001 (136) E.L.T.1047 (T) allowed the appeals filed by some of the manufacturer. The contention of the appellants is that as the demand is based on the ground that the appropriate duty has not been paid by the manufacturer of the goods and in the appeals filed by the manufacturer of the inputs, the matter was remanded or allowed. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for the deemed credit in view of the notification.

6. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the contention of the respondents is that M/s. S.A. Industries has taken deemed credit on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. Quality Steel and on verification it was found that M/s. Quality Steel has not discharged their liabilities as determined by the Commissioner (Appeals).

7. In these appeals, the issue is whether the manufacturer of the inputs had paid appropriate duty in respect of the goods supplied to the appellants and the appellants are entitled for the deemed credit in view of the notification. The appeals filed by various manufacturers were either remanded or allowed by the Tribunal as per the final order produced by the appellants. In these circumstances, it has to be verified by the adjudicating authority that whether the manufacturer of the inputs who issued the inputs had paid appropriate duty or not after the orders passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for deciding afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The appeals are decided by way of remand.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties S.A. Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge S Kang, a T V.K.