Daylon Crimpers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Daylon Crimpers vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 05, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/31120

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/31120
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T Gowri
Decided On: Jun 05, 2003
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Daylon Crimpers

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

.....they were issued to a dealer and endorsed by it, they must be considered to be invoices issued by the dealer is entirely unacceptable. first of all, it has not been shown that the person who received the goods in the first place was a dealer. any person who buys goods from the manufacturer does not by that fact become his dealer in the commercial circle. in any event, merely because the documents were endorsed by someone he does not become the issuer of it. any more than a person who endorse a negotiable instrument become the drawer thereof.3. i am therefore not able to appreciate the persistent attempt made by the counsel for the appellant to distinguish the ratio of the decision of the larger bench, on the ground that it was not received with invoices issued by a dealer, it would be clear that some conclusion would have to be arrived at. credit could only be taken on the basis of documents specified in the proviso under rule 57g. this proviso did not specify any invoice other than an invoice issued under rule 52a. such an invoice has necessarily to be addressed to the consigned of the goods. nor it is claimed that the central government has prescribed an endorsed invoice as a valid document for taking credit.4. the counsel for the appellant also cites the decision of the tribunal in cce v. mettur spinning mills ltd. 1998 (24) rlt 85, in which it has been held that endorsed invoices were acceptable for taking credit solely because endorsed gate passes were so acceptable.it completely ignores the fact that endorsed gate passes were acceptable for taking credit because they specifically so designated by the order of the central government in exercise of its power under rule 57g. it is not open to the tribunal to exercise the function of the executive and, in an effect to issue order under rule 57g or any other statute. apart from this, the decision of the larger bench, which is emphatic and clear will prevail over this decision.

Full Judgment

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to consideration as a document valid under Rule 57G for taking modvat credit of endorsed invoices. The appellant took credit on the invoices issued to one person which were endorsed to it. In the order impugned in the appeal denial of the credit has been confirmed on the ground that these were not valid documents.

2. The larger bench of the Tribunal in Balmer & Lawrie & Co. v. CCE 2000 (116) ELT 364 has held that such endorsed copies of invoices could not be recognised as valid documents under Rule 57G. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that since they were issued to a dealer and endorsed by it, they must be considered to be invoices issued by the dealer is entirely unacceptable. First of all, it has not been shown that the person who received the goods in the first place was a dealer. Any person who buys goods from the manufacturer does not by that fact become his dealer in the commercial circle. In any event, merely because the documents were endorsed by someone he does not become the issuer of it. Any more than a person who endorse a negotiable instrument become the drawer thereof.

3. I am therefore not able to appreciate the persistent attempt made by the counsel for the appellant to distinguish the ratio of the decision of the larger bench, on the ground that it was not received with invoices issued by a dealer, it would be clear that some conclusion would have to be arrived at. Credit could only be taken on the basis of documents specified in the proviso under Rule 57G. This proviso did not specify any invoice other than an invoice issued under Rule 52A. Such an invoice has necessarily to be addressed to the consigned of the goods. Nor it is claimed that the Central Government has prescribed an endorsed invoice as a valid document for taking credit.

4. The counsel for the appellant also cites the decision of the Tribunal in CCE v. Mettur Spinning Mills Ltd. 1998 (24) RLT 85, in which it has been held that endorsed invoices were acceptable for taking credit solely because endorsed gate passes were so acceptable.

It completely ignores the fact that endorsed gate passes were acceptable for taking credit because they specifically so designated by the order of the Central Government in exercise of its power under Rule 57G. It is not open to the Tribunal to exercise the function of the executive and, in an effect to issue order under Rule 57G or any other statute. Apart from this, the decision of the larger bench, which is emphatic and clear will prevail over this decision.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Daylon Crimpers vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge S T Gowri