The Commissioner of Central Vs. Peak Crimpers

The Commissioner of Central vs Peak Crimpers

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 01, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32509

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/32509
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S.
Decided On: Oct 01, 2003
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Commissioner of Central

Respondent

Peak Crimpers

Excerpt

i) as per rule 57gg(7) each foil of invoice book should be authenticated. in this case it is authenticated by their surat office, registered under central excise, the goods have been delivered from ankleshwar godown which is also registered. ii) the invoices did not have the details as required under notification no.33/94 ce(nt) dated 04/07/94 and were not authenticated by the ankleshwar office persons.2. heard both sides and considered the grounds in appeal and the cross objection and it is found :- a) at material time there was a godown at ankleshwar and the invoices were issued along with the goods from that godown. however, the dealer i.e. m/s.j.k synthetics had the head office at surat where the authorized signatory was situated. there is therefore nothing amiss in the authentication being done by the authorized person situated at surat as taken in the grounds before me. b) the invoices do bear the registration number. there is no finding of the goods being not duty paid or not received or and used. credit is eligible in terms of para 6 of satyam dyes (2001 (134) elt 655 lb). c) frivolous grounds have been taken in this case by revenue. appeals made on such grounds need to be dismissed.3. the order of lower authority is confirmed. revenue's appeal rejected and cross objection stands disposed off.

Full Judgment

i) As per Rule 57GG(7) each foil of invoice book should be authenticated. In this case it is authenticated by their Surat office, registered under Central Excise, the goods have been delivered from Ankleshwar godown which is also registered.

ii) The invoices did not have the details as required under Notification No.33/94 CE(NT) dated 04/07/94 and were not authenticated by the Ankleshwar office persons.

2. Heard both sides and considered the grounds in appeal and the cross objection and it is found :- a) At material time there was a godown at Ankleshwar and the invoices were issued along with the goods from that godown. However, the dealer i.e. M/s.J.K Synthetics had the Head Office at Surat where the authorized signatory was situated. There is therefore nothing amiss in the authentication being done by the authorized person situated at Surat as taken in the grounds before me.

b) The invoices do bear the registration number. There is no finding of the goods being not duty paid or not received or and used. Credit is eligible in terms of para 6 of Satyam Dyes (2001 (134) ELT 655 LB).

c) Frivolous grounds have been taken in this case by Revenue.

Appeals made on such grounds need to be dismissed.

3. The order of lower authority is confirmed. Revenue's appeal rejected and cross objection stands disposed off.

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