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 C. Ex. Vs. Jaycee Coach Builders Ltd.

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Jaycee Coach Builders Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 06, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34863

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 C. Ex.

Respondent

Jaycee Coach Builders Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(169)ELT178TriDel

Excerpt

1. in this appeal filed by the revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denial of modvat credit of the amount in question to the respondents. i have heard both the sides.the perusal of the record shows that the adjudicating authority disallowed the modvat credit of rs. 5,15,272/- to the respondents and a penalty of rs. 10,000/- on the ground that the invoices did not contain complete particulars such as the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer and also other particulars required under rule 57gg. the adjudicating authority even held that some of the invoices were inadmissible on the ground that the quantity and duty element shown therein did not tally with the quantity and duty mentioned by the manufacturer. the respondents challenged that order of the adjudicating authority before the commissioner (appeals) on the ground that it was passed ex parte. they produced certain additional documents before the commissioner (appeals). but the commissioner (appeals) without giving notice to the department regarding those additional documents, had accepted the same and allowed modvat credit to the respondents through the impugned order. he should have at least afforded an opportunity to the department for verifying the correctness of those documents or should have called for the report from the concerned superintendent/range office. he did not do so and decided the matter.in my view, the impugned order passed by him is violative of the principles of natural justice having been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the department. therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for re-examining the case, in the light of the additional documents filed by the respondents, after hearing both the sides. the appeal of the revenue accordingly stands disposed of.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denial of Modvat credit of the amount in question to the respondents. I have heard both the sides.

The perusal of the record shows that the adjudicating authority disallowed the Modvat credit of Rs. 5,15,272/- to the respondents and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the ground that the invoices did not contain complete particulars such as the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer and also other particulars required under Rule 57GG. The adjudicating authority even held that some of the invoices were inadmissible on the ground that the quantity and duty element shown therein did not tally with the quantity and duty mentioned by the manufacturer. The respondents challenged that order of the adjudicating authority before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that it was passed ex parte. They produced certain additional documents before the Commissioner (Appeals). But the Commissioner (Appeals) without giving notice to the Department regarding those additional documents, had accepted the same and allowed Modvat credit to the respondents through the impugned order. He should have at least afforded an opportunity to the Department for verifying the correctness of those documents or should have called for the report from the concerned Superintendent/Range Office. He did not do so and decided the matter.

In my view, the impugned order passed by him is violative of the principles of natural justice having been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Department. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for re-examining the case, in the light of the additional documents filed by the respondents, after hearing both the sides. The appeal of the Revenue accordingly stands disposed of.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial