Precision Stamping Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/39336 |
| Court | Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi |
| Decided On | Jun-13-2005 |
| Judge | P Bajaj |
| Reported in | (2005)(188)ELT453TriDel |
| Appellant | Precision Stamping |
| Respondent | Commissioner of Central Excise |
1. in this appeal the issue relates to the denial of the modvat credit of the amount in question to the appellants.2.the credit has been disallowed to the appellants by the id.commissioner (appeals) on the ground that the dealer took over the business from another person and permission for that taking over was not allowed and as such the dealer could not issue the modvatable documents to the appellants. but in my view this ground is not legally tenable. at the time of issuance of invoices, the dealer was registered dealer. the appellants have received the goods from the dealer under the duty paid valid invoices. the actual receipt of the goods received by them, the duty paid character and utilisation of the goods by the appellants in their factory remains undisputed. there is also nothing on the record to suggest if any, proceedings had been initiated against the dealer. under these circumstances, the appellants could not be denied the modvat credit on the basis of the invoices in question.therefore, the impugned order is set aside. the appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief, as per law.
1. In this appeal the issue relates to the denial of the Modvat credit of the amount in question to the appellants.
2.The credit has been disallowed to the appellants by the Id.
Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the dealer took over the business from another person and permission for that taking over was not allowed and as such the dealer could not issue the modvatable documents to the appellants. But in my view this ground is not legally tenable. At the time of issuance of invoices, the dealer was registered dealer. The appellants have received the goods from the dealer under the duty paid valid invoices. The actual receipt of the goods received by them, the duty paid character and utilisation of the goods by the appellants in their factory remains undisputed. There is also nothing on the record to suggest if any, proceedings had been initiated against the dealer. Under these circumstances, the appellants could not be denied the Modvat credit on the basis of the invoices in question.
Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief, as per law.