Dynamic Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Dynamic Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 10, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41756

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/41756
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Feb 10, 2006
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

Dynamic Industries

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

1. the appellant is a manufacturer of automobile parts, item being "door trims". these are supplied as original equipment to automobile manufacturers like daewoo motors india ltd., hindustan motors india ltd., ashok leyland ltd., etc. some consignments so supplied are returned by the recipient as rejects. the appellant has been taking credit of the duty paid on such items, thereafter repairing and remaking such rejected items and clearing them on payment of duty.under the impugned order, modvat credit of rs. 1,16,587/- has been denied in respect of door trims so received back. the reason for such denial of credit is that mr. k. m. gupta, finance manager of the company, had stated in the proceedings on 15-6-2001 that the rejected materials are destroyed being received in depleted condition or non-usable or non-repairable condition.2. the submissions of the learned counsel is that the finding reached was entirely based on the statement of shri k.m.gupta and is not correct at all. learned counsel has placed copies of rule 57a account to show that the appellant had been receiving the rejected goods and issuing them for remaking and taking the re-made items into production account. the contention is that the statement of shri gupta remains controverted by contemporaneous documentary evidence. according to the learned counsel, a statement which is contrary to documentary evidence cannot be accepted.3. the finding is not sustainable. contemporaneous documentary evidence confirmed the repair and clearance of the damaged door trims. an uncorroborated statement cannot find precedence over such evidence. the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

Full Judgment

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of automobile parts, item being "door trims". These are supplied as original equipment to automobile manufacturers like Daewoo Motors India Ltd., Hindustan Motors India Ltd., Ashok Leyland Ltd., etc. Some consignments so supplied are returned by the recipient as rejects. The appellant has been taking credit of the duty paid on such items, thereafter repairing and remaking such rejected items and clearing them on payment of duty.

Under the impugned order, Modvat credit of Rs. 1,16,587/- has been denied in respect of door trims so received back. The reason for such denial of credit is that Mr. K. M. Gupta, Finance Manager of the Company, had stated in the proceedings on 15-6-2001 that the rejected materials are destroyed being received in depleted condition or non-usable or non-repairable condition.

2. The submissions of the learned Counsel is that the finding reached was entirely based on the statement of Shri K.M.Gupta and is not correct at all. Learned Counsel has placed copies of Rule 57A account to show that the appellant had been receiving the rejected goods and issuing them for remaking and taking the re-made items into production account. The contention is that the statement of Shri Gupta remains controverted by contemporaneous documentary evidence. According to the learned Counsel, a statement which is contrary to documentary evidence cannot be accepted.

3. The finding is not sustainable. Contemporaneous documentary evidence confirmed the repair and clearance of the damaged door trims. An uncorroborated statement cannot find precedence over such evidence. The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Dynamic Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge N T C.N.B.