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.

Two Brothers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Two Brothers Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 15, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33809

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 Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Two Brothers Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(94)ECC543

Excerpt

1. in this appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denial of modvat credit to the appellants taken by them twice on a bill of entry dated 21.1.98.2. the learned consultant has contended that since duty was paid in two instalments and goods were also received in two lots, for that reason, the credit had been availed twice. he has shown the original bill of entry bearing the stamp of the customs authorities showing the receipt of the duty amount of rs. 3,58,765 from the appellants by the customs authorities, each on 22.2.99 and 24.2.99.3. on the other hand, the learned jdr has argued that the total duty on the goods covered by the bill of entry in question no. 7127 dated 22.1.98 involved was rs. 3,58,765 and this entire duty amount was paid by them on 22.2.99 as per the stamp of the customs authorities on the original invoice shown by the learned consultant and as such the question of payment of duty of this much amount again on 24.2.99 did not arise. no tr 6 challan had also been produced by them. therefore, credit had been rightly denied to them.4. i have heard both the sides and gone through the record. the facts are not much in dispute. the bare perusal of the photocopy of bill of entry placed on record shows that duty payable on the imported goods was rs. 3,58,765 and this entire amount was paid by the appellants on 22.2.99. this fact is also evident from the original copy of the bill of entry shown by the consultant during the course of arguments. when the entire duty was paid by them on that date, it is difficult to accept again they paid this much amount after two days i.e. on 24.2.99.no tr 6 challan showing payment of duty on 24.2.99 had been produced by them. therefore, they could not take the modvat credit twice against the same bill of entry, even if it is taken that the goods were received by them in two lots, i do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the same is upheld.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the issue relates to the denial of modvat credit to the appellants taken by them twice on a Bill of Entry dated 21.1.98.

2. The learned Consultant has contended that since duty was paid in two instalments and goods were also received in two lots, for that reason, the credit had been availed twice. He has shown the original Bill of Entry bearing the stamp of the Customs authorities showing the receipt of the duty amount of Rs. 3,58,765 from the appellants by the customs authorities, each on 22.2.99 and 24.2.99.

3. On the other hand, the learned JDR has argued that the total duty on the goods covered by the Bill of Entry in question No. 7127 dated 22.1.98 involved was Rs. 3,58,765 and this entire duty amount was paid by them on 22.2.99 as per the stamp of the Customs authorities on the original invoice shown by the learned Consultant and as such the question of payment of duty of this much amount again on 24.2.99 did not arise. No TR 6 challan had also been produced by them. Therefore, credit had been rightly denied to them.

4. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The facts are not much in dispute. The bare perusal of the photocopy of Bill of Entry placed on record shows that duty payable on the imported goods was Rs. 3,58,765 and this entire amount was paid by the appellants on 22.2.99. This fact is also evident from the original copy of the Bill of Entry shown by the Consultant during the course of arguments. When the entire duty was paid by them on that date, it is difficult to accept again they paid this much amount after two days i.e. on 24.2.99.

No TR 6 challan showing payment of duty on 24.2.99 had been produced by them. Therefore, they could not take the modvat credit twice against the same Bill of Entry, even if it is taken that the goods were received by them in two lots, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the same is upheld.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial