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.

Cce Vs. Venus Engg. Services

Cce vs Venus Engg. Services

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 24, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/35364

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 Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
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

Cce

Respondent

Venus Engg. Services

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(115)LC557Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the respondents herein were availing proforma credit under rule 56a on copper pipes and tubes, electric motors, aluminium sheets and coils, even after the deletion of these items from the coverage of proforma credit vide notification no. 178/86 dated 1.3.1986, i.e. they continued to avail proforma credit on these items up to february, 1987 and on this basis the adjudicating authority disallowed the credit. however, the lower appellate authority held that they were eligible to credit as they were protected by rule 56a(8) which was introduced by notification no. 91/86 ce dated 10.2.1986 which provides that notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this rule...the credit of duty paid on any material...shall be allowed if the credit of duty was allowable in respect of such material...under this rule or under a notification issued under rule 8 of these rules requiring the procedure set out in schedule to be followed, immediately before the commencement of the ceta. 1985.the commissioner (appeals) held that in view of this amendment manufacturers availing benefit of notification 95/83 (proforma credit) were allowed to switch over automatically to rule 56a which continued by virtue of sub-rule 8 of rule 56a.2. on hearing the ld. sdr and perusing the records and the relevant rules, we find that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the lower appellate authority who has correctly extended the credit in terms of rule 56a(8) and accordingly uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The respondents herein were availing proforma credit under Rule 56A on copper pipes and tubes, electric motors, aluminium sheets and coils, even after the deletion of these items from the coverage of proforma credit vide Notification No. 178/86 dated 1.3.1986, i.e. they continued to avail proforma credit on these items up to February, 1987 and on this basis the Adjudicating Authority disallowed the credit. However, the lower appellate Authority held that they were eligible to credit as they were protected by Rule 56A(8) which was introduced by Notification No. 91/86 CE dated 10.2.1986 which provides that Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Rule...the credit of duty paid on any material...shall be allowed if the credit of duty was allowable in respect of such material...under this rule or under a notification issued under Rule 8 of these rules requiring the procedure set out in Schedule to be followed, immediately before the commencement of the CETA. 1985.

The Commissioner (Appeals) held that in view of this amendment manufacturers availing benefit of Notification 95/83 (Proforma credit) were allowed to switch over automatically to Rule 56A which continued by virtue of Sub-rule 8 of Rule 56A.2. On hearing the ld. SDR and perusing the records and the relevant Rules, we find that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the lower Appellate Authority who has correctly extended the credit in terms of Rule 56A(8) and accordingly uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial