Sundeep Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Sundeep Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 14, 2007

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46652

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/46652
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice
Decided On: Dec 14, 2007
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

Sundeep Electrodes Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2008)(127)ECC91

Excerpt

1. the appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby credit of rs. 40,772/- was disallowed and penalty of rs. 50,000/- was imposed.2. the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of welding electrodes.the appellant started availing the benefit of small-scale exemption notification no. 1/93 with effect from 1.4.95 and at that time the appellant reversed the credit lying in their credit accounts.thereafter, on 31.5.95 as the appellant crossed the limit of exemption and started clearing the goods on payment of duty, filed a declaration under rule 57-h of central excise rules for taking credit in respect of the inputs lying in stock, under process and contained in the final product. a show-cause notice was issued for denying the credit of rs. 40,772/- on the ground that the credit has already been availed by the appellant in the year 1993-94 and 1994-95 as the invoices were defaced at the time of taking credit.3. the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of rs. 50,000/-. the appellant filed appeal and commissioner (appeals) rejected the appeal. the tribunal remanded the matter vide order dated 12.11.97 to the adjudicating authority setting aside the denial of credit on the ground that invoices were already defaced. however, the tribunal directed the lower authority to verify the existence of stock of the subject inputs. thereafter, again the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and commissioner (appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh. the adjudicating authority again confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. the commissioner (appeals) dismissed the appeal. the present appeal is against the order passed by the commissioner (appeals). i find that the tribunal initially remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to verify the existence of the inputs lying in stock.4. now, in the impugned order, the findings of commissioner (appeals) is that the appellant failed to produce any.....

Full Judgment

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby credit of Rs. 40,772/- was disallowed and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed.

2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of welding electrodes.

The appellant started availing the benefit of small-scale exemption notification No. 1/93 with effect from 1.4.95 and at that time the appellant reversed the credit lying in their credit accounts.

Thereafter, on 31.5.95 as the appellant crossed the limit of exemption and started clearing the goods on payment of duty, filed a declaration under Rule 57-H of Central Excise Rules for taking credit in respect of the inputs lying in stock, under process and contained in the final product. A show-cause notice was issued for denying the credit of Rs. 40,772/- on the ground that the credit has already been availed by the appellant in the year 1993-94 and 1994-95 as the invoices were defaced at the time of taking credit.

3. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The appellant filed appeal and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal. The Tribunal remanded the matter vide order dated 12.11.97 to the adjudicating authority setting aside the denial of credit on the ground that invoices were already defaced. However, the Tribunal directed the lower authority to verify the existence of stock of the subject inputs. Thereafter, again the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh. The adjudicating authority again confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. The present appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). I find that the Tribunal initially remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to verify the existence of the inputs lying in stock.

4. Now, in the impugned order, the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) is that the appellant failed to produce any evidence showing the existence of the inputs in their stock. In view of this finding, as the appellant failed to show existence of the inputs at the time of filing declaration, the credit was rightly denied.

5. As I find that demand is for the year 1995-96 and the amount in question was already debited in the year 1997 and the case of the appellant is that there is no intention on the part of the appellant to avail credit which is not admissible. The contention is that the credit, in the show-cause notice, allegation is that credit cannot be availed on the strength of defaced invoices.

6. In these circumstances, I find it is not a case for imposition of penalty. The penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Sundeep Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Kang, Vice