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.

Poly Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Poly Processors vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 18, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/31635

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

Poly Processors

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2003)(162)ELT230Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the appeal is against the order of the commissioner (appeals) confirming the denial by the asst. commissioner of the credit taken by the appellant on the ground that the duplicate copy of the invoice which was issued on 22-8-1994 was not coloured pink as provided by notification 23/95 effective from 1-8-1995.2. the appellant is absent and unrepresented and relies upon the decision of the tribunal in nexon tubes ltd. v. cce 559. the departmental representative relies upon the decision of the single member of the tribunal in somani iron and steel - 1998 (100) e.l.t. 393.in nexon tubes v. cce, the two member bench of the tribunal at calcutta held that the denial of the credit on the view that the duplicate invoice was not coloured pink was not justified because the invoices were issued between 1-8-1995 and 30-9-1995 shortly after the scheme was reasonably introduced and also found that the objection was hyper technical. in somani iron & steel - 1998 (100) e.l.t. 393, it has been noted that while the notification requiring different for invoices came into effect on 1-8-1995, it was issued on 30-5-1995, and had been given wide publicity to trade notice and published in journals. the tribunal noted that the facility was introduced to prevent abuse of the modvat scheme and therefore, confirmed the denial of the credit.4. there are two directly contrary order on the issue. i, therefore have no alternative but to refer the matter to the larger bench for consideration of the issue and to hold which of the two is correct. the paper may be placed before to the president for constitution of a larger bench.

Full Judgment

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the denial by the Asst. Commissioner of the credit taken by the appellant on the ground that the duplicate copy of the invoice which was issued on 22-8-1994 was not coloured pink as provided by Notification 23/95 effective from 1-8-1995.

2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented and relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in Nexon Tubes Ltd. v. CCE 559. The departmental representative relies upon the decision of the single member of the Tribunal in Somani Iron and Steel - 1998 (100) E.L.T. 393.In Nexon Tubes v. CCE, the two member bench of the Tribunal at Calcutta held that the denial of the credit on the view that the duplicate invoice was not coloured pink was not justified because the invoices were issued between 1-8-1995 and 30-9-1995 shortly after the scheme was reasonably introduced and also found that the objection was hyper technical. In Somani Iron & Steel - 1998 (100) E.L.T. 393, it has been noted that while the notification requiring different for invoices came into effect on 1-8-1995, it was issued on 30-5-1995, and had been given wide publicity to trade notice and published in journals. The Tribunal noted that the facility was introduced to prevent abuse of the Modvat scheme and therefore, confirmed the denial of the credit.

4. There are two directly contrary order on the issue. I, therefore have no alternative but to refer the matter to the Larger Bench for consideration of the issue and to hold which of the two is correct. The paper may be placed before to the President for constitution of a Larger Bench.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial