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.

Polycab Cables Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Polycab Cables Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 06, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39271

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

Polycab Cables Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Excerpt

1.1 after hearing both sides and finding that the appeal itself could be disposed of, at this stage, after waiver of pre-deposit, the appeal is taken up for disposal.2.1 appellants have been denied eligibility of credit as the invoice on which the same was to be availed was not an eligible document under rule 7 (1)(b) of the cenvat rules since the subsequent duty discharge was alleged to be tainted with the act of a recovery confirmed on penalty on the supplier of the goods.2.2 the ld. advocate for the appellants produced the decision of this tribunal in appeal no. e/2351, 2352/04 no. a/351, 352/wzb/05-cii dated 21.2.2005, wherein the bench had found that the duty paid by the manufacturer was on own without the department having pointed out an error as was evident from the notice issued to that manufacturer, after ten months of the payment. therefore, the penalty was set aside.2.3 since the subsequent payments of duty by the manufacturer have not been held to be tainted with penalty any longer, the denial of credit under rule 7(1)(b) cannot be upheld as regards the appellants herein.consequently, the order cannot be upheld and is to be set aside.3.1 ordered accordingly. we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Full Judgment

1.1 After hearing both sides and finding that the appeal itself could be disposed of, at this stage, after waiver of pre-deposit, the appeal is taken up for disposal.

2.1 Appellants have been denied eligibility of credit as the invoice on which the same was to be availed was not an eligible document under rule 7 (1)(b) of the Cenvat Rules since the subsequent duty discharge was alleged to be tainted with the act of a recovery confirmed on penalty on the supplier of the goods.

2.2 The Ld. Advocate for the appellants produced the decision of this Tribunal in Appeal no. E/2351, 2352/04 No. A/351, 352/WZB/05-CII dated 21.2.2005, wherein the Bench had found that the duty paid by the manufacturer was on own without the department having pointed out an error as was evident from the notice issued to that manufacturer, after ten months of the payment. Therefore, the penalty was set aside.

2.3 Since the subsequent payments of duty by the manufacturer have not been held to be tainted with penalty any longer, the denial of credit under Rule 7(1)(b) cannot be upheld as regards the appellants herein.

Consequently, the order cannot be upheld and is to be set aside.

3.1 Ordered accordingly. We set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial