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. S.K. Industries P. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs S.K. Industries P. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 30, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/35791

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

S.K. Industries P. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(172)ELT165TriDel

Excerpt

1. in this appeal filed by the revenue, the issue relates to the denial of modvat credit of rs. 91,011/- for the period april 98, to the respondents on the strength of invoice issued by m/s. enkay texo food industries ltd. (100% eou).2. i have heard both the sides and gone through the record. the perusal of the record shows that the adjudicating authority disallowed the credit as the supplier of the goods being a 100% eou, could not issue invoice under rules 52a and 173g of the rules. the commissioner (appeals) has reversed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority by observing that the appellants had rightly taken the credit of duty as mentioned in the invoice. but he has failed to refer to any rule or tariff heading under which duty at such a high rate was payable on the goods supplied by the supplier to the respondents. apparently such a rate is not prescribed in the tariff and as such could not be claimed by the respondents. moreover, the invoice issued by the supplier, who was 100% eou, was not valid as the same could only be issued under rule 100e of the central excise rules. therefore, the invoice issued was invalid and not proper. the respondents have wrongly availed the modvat credit. therefore, the impugned order-in-appeal is set aside and the order of the adjudicating authority is restored. the appeal of the revenue accordingly stands accepted.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue relates to the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 91,011/- for the period April 98, to the respondents on the strength of invoice issued by M/s. Enkay Texo Food Industries Ltd. (100% EOU).

2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that the adjudicating authority disallowed the credit as the supplier of the goods being a 100% EOU, could not issue invoice under Rules 52A and 173G of the Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority by observing that the appellants had rightly taken the credit of duty as mentioned in the invoice. But he has failed to refer to any Rule or Tariff Heading under which duty at such a high rate was payable on the goods supplied by the supplier to the respondents. Apparently such a rate is not prescribed in the Tariff and as such could not be claimed by the respondents. Moreover, the invoice issued by the supplier, who was 100% EOU, was not valid as the same could only be issued under Rule 100E of the Central Excise Rules. Therefore, the invoice issued was invalid and not proper. The respondents have wrongly availed the Modvat credit. Therefore, the impugned order-in-appeal is set aside and the order of the adjudicating authority is restored. The appeal of the Revenue accordingly stands accepted.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial