Vada Timber Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Vada Timber Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 10, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/30608

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/30608
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S Kang
Decided On: Apr 10, 2003
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vada Timber Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Excerpt

.....by the commissioner (appeals).2. in this case, the benefit of modvat credit was denied to the appellants on the ground that the appellant had not received the goods but future the credit and penalty was also imposed on the appellants.3. the brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were availing the benefit of modvat credit. appellants availed the credit in respect of the imported veneer. on verification, it was found that the imported goods were diverted to m/s. durian industries pvt. ltd. and the appellants have only taken credit which is not permissible.5. the contention of the appellant is that the goods were received by them on 19.11.96 and 21.11.96. the material was accompanied by road challans of m/s. wester carriers. the contention is that there was no evidence that the goods were diverted to m/s. durian industries and this allegation is without any basis.6. the contention of the revenue is that the goods were received on 19.11.96 and 21.11.96 but entries were made in their rg-23 part-i on 28.11.96 and on the same date, the material was issued for production.if the goods were received on or prior to 21.11.96, the appellants had not taken any step for entering the goods in their modvat account.revenue also relied upon the statement of employee of the appellants as well as cleaner of the truck in support of the allegation.7. in this case, the allegation against the appellants is that they have not received the goods and they have only taken the credit. there are statements of ratanlal prabhudayal dhoknia, authorised signatory of the appellants and of shri dipankar mitra. statements were recorded on 12.12.96 and they have stated that the appellants had not received any veneer. shri laxmi keshav, dealing clerk also in his statement stated that he was maintaining central excise records and was residing in the factory premises and also supervising the receipt of the raw materials.he also denied the.....

Full Judgment

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (appeals).

2. In this case, the benefit of modvat credit was denied to the appellants on the ground that the appellant had not received the goods but future the credit and penalty was also imposed on the appellants.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were availing the benefit of modvat credit. Appellants availed the credit in respect of the imported veneer. On verification, it was found that the imported goods were diverted to M/s. Durian Industries Pvt. Ltd. and the appellants have only taken credit which is not permissible.

5. The contention of the appellant is that the goods were received by them on 19.11.96 and 21.11.96. The material was accompanied by road challans of M/s. Wester Carriers. The contention is that there was no evidence that the goods were diverted to M/s. Durian Industries and this allegation is without any basis.

6. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods were received on 19.11.96 and 21.11.96 but entries were made in their RG-23 Part-I on 28.11.96 and on the same date, the material was issued for production.

If the goods were received on or prior to 21.11.96, the appellants had not taken any step for entering the goods in their modvat account.

Revenue also relied upon the statement of employee of the appellants as well as cleaner of the truck in support of the allegation.

7. In this case, the allegation against the appellants is that they have not received the goods and they have only taken the credit. There are statements of Ratanlal Prabhudayal Dhoknia, authorised signatory of the appellants and of Shri Dipankar Mitra. Statements were recorded on 12.12.96 and they have stated that the appellants had not received any veneer. Shri Laxmi Keshav, dealing clerk also in his statement stated that he was maintaining central excise records and was residing in the factory premises and also supervising the receipt of the raw materials.

He also denied the receipt of the imported veneer.

8. Statement of the cleaner of the truck Shiv Prashad Samarbahaddur Singh also shows that the goods were delivered to M/s. Durian Industries Pvt. Ltd. on 19.11.96 and 21.11.96.

9. If the appellants had received the goods on 19.11.96 and 21.11.96, they were not entered in their modvat credit account. The goods were entered in their modvat account on 28.11.96 and on the same date, the goods were shown to be issued for production.

10. Appellants relied upon the statement of Mr. Saini who was regular employee of M/s. Durian Industries. The appellants failed to produce any evidence to show his employment under them. In the circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Vada Timber Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce Same Subject Excise Same Judge S Kang