Emmes Metal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Emmes Metal Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 29, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32028

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/32028
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T C.
Decided On: Aug 29, 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

Emmes Metal Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(161)ELT1041Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. heard both sides. in pursuance of the tribunal order nos.ci/3816-17/wzb/2001, dated 13-12-2001 [2002 (145) e.l.t. 234 (tribunal)], the appellants were required to produce a copy of re-constructed bill of entry before the assistant commissioner to whom the case was remanded for fresh decision. the present miscellaneous application was filed by the appellants since they did not receive from the customs authorities either any reply or copy of reconstructed bill of entry. the learned j.d.r. has received a reply from the customs authorities indicating that the case is very old and they are not able to trace the original bill of entry to be able to supply a reconstructed bill of entry to the appellants.2. it is the appellants' case that the credit was taken by them on 26th november, 1994 on the basis of triplicate copy of the bill of entry and that they had also shown the triplicate copy to the audit party on 8-4-1995. it is their claim that only subsequently, the triplicate copy has been misplaced. they have, however, produced a xerox copy of the bill of entry certified by the customs authorities. in view of the fact that the original copy of the bill of entry is not traceable, the appellants are directed to submit an indemnity bond securing the duty amount against possible misuse of the triplicate copy. subject to such bond being filed, they will be allowed to avail the credit which they have already taken. miscellaneous application is disposed of in the above terms.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides. In pursuance of the Tribunal Order Nos.

CI/3816-17/WZB/2001, dated 13-12-2001 [2002 (145) E.L.T. 234 (Tribunal)], the appellants were required to produce a copy of re-constructed bill of entry before the Assistant Commissioner to whom the case was remanded for fresh decision. The present miscellaneous application was filed by the appellants since they did not receive from the customs authorities either any reply or copy of reconstructed bill of entry. The learned J.D.R. has received a reply from the customs authorities indicating that the case is very old and they are not able to trace the original bill of entry to be able to supply a reconstructed bill of entry to the appellants.

2. It is the appellants' case that the credit was taken by them on 26th November, 1994 on the basis of triplicate copy of the bill of entry and that they had also shown the triplicate copy to the audit party on 8-4-1995. It is their claim that only subsequently, the triplicate copy has been misplaced. They have, however, produced a xerox copy of the bill of entry certified by the customs authorities. In view of the fact that the original copy of the bill of entry is not traceable, the appellants are directed to submit an indemnity bond securing the duty amount against possible misuse of the triplicate copy. Subject to such bond being filed, they will be allowed to avail the credit which they have already taken. Miscellaneous application is disposed of in the above terms.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Emmes Metal Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S T C.