Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Accuprint Systems (P) Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Accuprint Systems (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 29, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/35116

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/35116
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: K Kumar
Decided On: Apr 29, 2004
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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Accuprint Systems (P) Ltd.

Excerpt

.....been filed against the same. the order-in-original was passed on 06.11.1998 and the order-in-appeal was passed on 28.9.2000 whereas the appeal has been filed by the department on january 2001 and as such the department was well within the knowledge of the issue of the certificate still they have chosen not to challenge the same. he submitted that the certificate issued subsequently is a valid document and since the duty amount was paid subsequently the appellant are fully entitled for the benefit. the ld.counsel in support of his contention that, re-engraving on used cylinders does not amount to manufacture, relied on the larger bench decision in the case of j.s.s. printing industries pvt. ltd. and anr.v. cce reported in 2000 (41) rlt 133 (cegat- l.b.). he also relied on the decision in the cases of bharat petroleum corporation. ltd. v.collector of customse.l.t.402 (tribunal), west coast engineering works v. ccee.l.t.400 (tri.), jaohar enterprises v. commissioner of customs reported in 1996 (84) e.l.t.226 (tri.) and ultramarine & pigments ltd. v. cce reported in 1996 (84) e.l.t.223 (tri.) to the effect that when the export goods have been cleared for home consumption and the appellants have received the certificate from the superintendent of jurisdictional range, modvat credit is admissible in terms of rule 57s of the central excise rules, 1944.3. after hearing both sides, perusal of the records and case laws relied on by the ld. advocate, i find that the issue involved in the case is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the afore-said decisions. i, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue.

Full Judgment

1. Shri M.H. Sheikh, Ld. JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue and he submitted that re-engraving on used cylinders amounts to manufacture.

The duty has been paid by the appellant without protest. The goods in question are dutiable as per sub Heading Tariff 8442 of Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act. The Superintendent rightly refused to issue certificate under Rule 57E(5).

2. Shri P.K. Shetty, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent and he submitted that the appeal filed by the revenue is infructous inasmuch as the certificate has already been issued by the Superintendent on 30.03.2000. The certificate has not been questioned by the department nor any appeal has been filed against the same. The Order-in-Original was passed on 06.11.1998 and the Order-in-Appeal was passed on 28.9.2000 whereas the appeal has been filed by the department on January 2001 and as such the department was well within the knowledge of the issue of the certificate still they have chosen not to challenge the same. He submitted that the certificate issued subsequently is a valid document and since the duty amount was paid subsequently the appellant are fully entitled for the benefit. The Ld.

Counsel in support of his contention that, re-engraving on used cylinders does not amount to manufacture, relied on the Larger Bench decision in the case of J.S.S. Printing Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

v. CCE reported in 2000 (41) RLT 133 (CEGAT- L.B.). He also relied on the decision in the cases of Bharat Petroleum Corporation. Ltd. v.Collector of CustomsE.L.T.402 (Tribunal), West Coast Engineering Works v. CCEE.L.T.400 (Tri.), Jaohar Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T.226 (Tri.) and Ultramarine & Pigments Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T.223 (Tri.) to the effect that when the export goods have been cleared for home consumption and the appellants have received the certificate from the Superintendent of Jurisdictional range, modvat credit is admissible in terms of Rule 57S of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

3. After hearing both sides, perusal of the records and case laws relied on by the Ld. Advocate, I find that the issue involved in the case is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the afore-said decisions. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Accuprint Systems (P) Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge K Kumar