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.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Saggar Alloys

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Saggar Alloys

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 20, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33849

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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Saggar Alloys

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(166)ELT50TriDel

Excerpt

1. none for the respondents inspite of issuance of notice for today's hearing. even on the last date of hearing, none appeared on their behalf and the appeal was adjourned for today. no request for adjournment has also been received from them. therefore, i proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned jdr.2. the issue in this appeal which has been filed by the revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals) relates to the availability of modvat credit of rs. 30,176/- to the respondents. the facts are not much in dispute. the respondents purchased the materials (ms waste and scrap) through 3 invoices from m/s. lalit steel corporation. the credit had been sought to be denied to them by the department on the ground that national re-rollers and fabricators from whom lalit steel corporation purchased the goods, was not entitled to avail deemed credit towards the payment of duty on the goods. but there is nothing on the record to suggest that if the said firm had been proceeded against by the department. the respondents had purchased the goods on the basis of duly paid documents. the duty paid nature of the goods received by them and utilisation of the same in the factory, had not been disputed by the department. they cannot be penalised for the reason that the original supplier wrongly availed the deemed credit, especially when the department has not so far taken out any proceedings on that ground against them. the commissioner (appeals), in my view, has rightly allowed credit to the respondents.the impugned order is, therefore, upheld. the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. None for the respondents inspite of issuance of notice for today's hearing. Even on the last date of hearing, none appeared on their behalf and the appeal was adjourned for today. No request for adjournment has also been received from them. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned JDR.2. The issue in this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) relates to the availability of Modvat credit of Rs. 30,176/- to the respondents. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents purchased the materials (MS waste and scrap) through 3 invoices from M/s. Lalit Steel Corporation. The credit had been sought to be denied to them by the Department on the ground that National Re-rollers and Fabricators from whom Lalit Steel Corporation purchased the goods, was not entitled to avail deemed credit towards the payment of duty on the goods. But there is nothing on the record to suggest that if the said firm had been proceeded against by the Department. The respondents had purchased the goods on the basis of duly paid documents. The duty paid nature of the goods received by them and utilisation of the same in the factory, had not been disputed by the Department. They cannot be penalised for the reason that the original supplier wrongly availed the deemed credit, especially when the Department has not so far taken out any proceedings on that ground against them. The Commissioner (Appeals), in my view, has rightly allowed credit to the respondents.

The impugned order is, therefore, upheld. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial