Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Manmade Spinners (i) Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Manmade Spinners (i) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 22, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/30988

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
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

Manmade Spinners (i) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2003)(159)ELT884Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. by its order passed on stay application filed by the respondent to this application and others, the tribunal ordered deposit by it of rs. 40 lakhs. on 30-9-2002, it accepted compliance.2. this application by the commissioner seeks to contend that the applicant has not complied with the tribunal's order because the deposit ought to have been made in cash or from the personal ledger account, and the deposit made by debit to the modvat account is not acceptable.3. we must emphasise that it is not the business of the commissioner to sit in judgment upon the order of the tribunal accepting the compliance shown by the applicant. the tribunal would not have blindly accepted compliance; but has done so after noting the deposit made by debit to the rg 23a account.4. even otherwise the commissioner's application is entirely devoid of merit. the order of the tribunal in fibre glass insulation v. cce, which the application relies upon, found that, on the facts before it, the assessee was required to deposit the amount either in cash or by debit to the personal ledger account. no such condition has been laid down by the tribunal in the stay order under reference. if authority is needed for this purpose, the decision of the tribunal in birla yamaha ltd. v. cce - 1996 (83) e.l.t. 396 holding that payment can be made debiting to the modvat account is sufficient. therefore, the deposit made by the assessee in this case is perfectly valid.

Full Judgment

1. By its order passed on stay application filed by the respondent to this application and others, the Tribunal ordered deposit by it of Rs. 40 lakhs. On 30-9-2002, it accepted compliance.

2. This application by the Commissioner seeks to contend that the applicant has not complied with the Tribunal's order because the deposit ought to have been made in cash or from the personal ledger account, and the deposit made by debit to the Modvat account is not acceptable.

3. We must emphasise that it is not the business of the Commissioner to sit in judgment upon the order of the Tribunal accepting the compliance shown by the applicant. The Tribunal would not have blindly accepted compliance; but has done so after noting the deposit made by debit to the RG 23A account.

4. Even otherwise the Commissioner's application is entirely devoid of merit. The order of the Tribunal in Fibre Glass Insulation v. CCE, which the application relies upon, found that, on the facts before it, the assessee was required to deposit the amount either in cash or by debit to the personal ledger account. No such condition has been laid down by the Tribunal in the stay order under reference. If authority is needed for this purpose, the decision of the Tribunal in Birla Yamaha Ltd. v. CCE - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 396 holding that payment can be made debiting to the Modvat account is sufficient. Therefore, the deposit made by the assessee in this case is perfectly valid.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial