Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vintron Electronics P. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Vintron Electronics P. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 29, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37544

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/37544
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: M T K.C.
Decided On: Dec 29, 2004
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

Vintron Electronics P. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(182)ELT218TriDel

Excerpt

1. the revenue has challenged the order of the commissioner (appeals) on the ground that it was wrongly held by him that the delivery note containing all the particulars is necessarily an invoice issued under rule 52a which is a specified document under rule 57g(3) of the central excise rules, 1944. shri p.m. rao, learned jdr appearing for the revenue stated that the delivery note was an invalid document as the same has not been prescribed under modvat rules. rule 57g(2) clearly mentions that no credit shall be taken unless the inputs are received in the factory under cover of the documents as specified. the commissioner (appeals) has also not given finding that what were the details available in the delivery challan on the basis of which credit was taken.2. shri r. pal singh, learned consultant appearing for the respondents pleaded that under explanation to rule 52a of the central excise rules, 1944 the term 'invoice' means assessees' own documents such as invoice challans, advice or other document of similar nature generally used for sale or removal of excisable goods and which shall contain all the particulars as required under the said act or in these rules are valid documents for taking credit. i find that the commissioner (appeals) has already given the finding that in the delivery note all the required particulars are given. once the duty paid nature of the goods received and used by the respondents is not disputed and all the particulars required are given in the delivery note, question of denial of credit does not arise. therefore, the order of the commissioner (appeals) is correct in law and it does not require any interference. accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that it was wrongly held by him that the delivery note containing all the particulars is necessarily an invoice issued under Rule 52A which is a specified document under Rule 57G(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Shri P.M. Rao, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue stated that the delivery note was an invalid document as the same has not been prescribed under Modvat Rules. Rule 57G(2) clearly mentions that no credit shall be taken unless the inputs are received in the factory under cover of the documents as specified. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also not given finding that what were the details available in the delivery challan on the basis of which credit was taken.

2. Shri R. Pal Singh, learned Consultant appearing for the respondents pleaded that under explanation to Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 the term 'invoice' means assessees' own documents such as invoice challans, advice or other document of similar nature generally used for sale or removal of excisable goods and which shall contain all the particulars as required under the said Act or in these rules are valid documents for taking credit. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has already given the finding that in the delivery note all the required particulars are given. Once the duty paid nature of the goods received and used by the respondents is not disputed and all the particulars required are given in the delivery note, question of denial of credit does not arise. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct in law and it does not require any interference. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Vintron Electronics P. Ltd. Same Subject Excise Same Judge M T K.C.