Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. F.F.C. Aroma Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs F.F.C. Aroma Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 28, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/30465

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/30465
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: K Kumar
Decided On: Mar 28, 2003
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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

F.F.C. Aroma Pvt. Ltd.

Excerpt

.....pahladrai confectioneries pvt. ltd. v.collector of central excise, allahabad - 1997 (93) e.l.t. 86 (tribunal), cce, madras v. brij & associates - 1997 (114) e.l.t. 698 (tribunal) and the clarification issued by cbec as per circular no.49/49/94 ex. dated 18.8.94 regarding particulars to be furnished under rule 57gg. the said circular was effective from 01.09.94. he also supported the order passed by the ld. commissioner (appeals) where the commissioner (appeals) has interalia held that since the invoices pertaining to the reference to the manufactures invoice contained date and duty, quantity amount and total duty amount etc. as recorded in notification no. 15/94, they can be said to have complied with notification no. 15/94. the allegation levelled in the show cause notice for denial of the credit are such which will not have any impact on the duty paying character of the goods which is not under dispute.since the invoices issued after 4.7.94 complied with the registration and that the invoices issued prior to 4.7.94 complied with the notification no. 15/94, the denial of the credit by the lower authority on the ground that the particulars like division, range no. have not been furnished was not in order. therefore, the contention of the learned advocate is that there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the commissioner (appeals).3. after hearing both sides and perusal of the records, i find that since the duty paying character is not in dispute, the denial of credit on the mere procedural irregularities will not be justified. therefore, i uphold the order passed by the ld. commissioner (appeals) and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue.

Full Judgment

1. Shri. M.H. Sheikh, Learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue contends that the invoice wise details pertaining to the assessee as mentioned in the show cause notice does not contain the necessary particulars such as name and address of manufacturer, name and address of Central range, division and jurisdictional collector, mode of transportation and registration etc. It is not possible to verify the calculation keeping in view the provisions of Rule 52A and 57A of the Central Excise Rules read with Notification 15/94 dated 30 Mar 94 and as such the respondents could not be allowed credit.

2. Shri D.D. Gwalani, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that necessary details were furnished along with statement pertaining invoice wise giving all the details including registration of the dealer as mentioned in para 3 of the Commissioner's Order. He also submitted that the duty paying character of the goods in not under dispute and there is no allegation with regard to clandestine removal of the goods in question. In support of his contention he relied on the decision in the case of Sandish Combine Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Pune - 1999 (105) ELT 468 (Tri.) Pahladrai Confectioneries Pvt. Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 86 (Tribunal), CCE, Madras v. Brij & Associates - 1997 (114) E.L.T. 698 (Tribunal) and the clarification issued by CBEC as per Circular No.49/49/94 Ex. Dated 18.8.94 regarding particulars to be furnished under Rule 57GG. The said Circular was effective from 01.09.94. He also supported the Order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) where the Commissioner (Appeals) has interalia held that since the invoices pertaining to the reference to the manufactures invoice contained date and duty, quantity amount and total duty amount etc. as recorded in Notification No. 15/94, they can be said to have complied with notification No. 15/94. The allegation levelled in the show cause notice for denial of the credit are such which will not have any impact on the duty paying character of the goods which is not under dispute.

Since the invoices issued after 4.7.94 complied with the Registration and that the invoices issued prior to 4.7.94 complied with the Notification No. 15/94, the denial of the credit by the lower authority on the ground that the particulars like Division, Range No. have not been furnished was not in order. Therefore, the contention of the learned advocate is that there is no need to interfere with the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. After hearing both sides and perusal of the records, I find that since the duty paying character is not in dispute, the denial of credit on the mere procedural irregularities will not be justified. Therefore, I uphold the Order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs F.F.C. Aroma Pvt. Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge K Kumar