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.

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Auto Ignition Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs vs Auto Ignition Ltd.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Supreme Court of India Decided Apr 23, 2008
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/677146

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
Supreme Court of India
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Appeal Nos. 6537-6538 of 2002
Subject
Customs
Disposition
Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Customs - Availing of MODVAT Credit - Respondent -Assessee was served with show cause notice demanding various amounts of Customs Duty on goods imported by Assessee - Appellant-authority-in-original held that the Assessee had availed of the MODVAT credit and confirmed the duty demanded in the show cause notices - As...

Key legal issue
Customs
Outcome / disposition
Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs

Advocate K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv.,; Binu Tamta, Adv. for; P. Parmesw

Respondent

Auto Ignition Ltd.

Advocate Alok Yadav and ; Ajay Majithia, Advs. for ; Kailash Chand

Legal References

Reported In
2008(129)ECC122; 2008(155)LC122(SC)

Excerpt

customs - availing of modvat credit - respondent -assessee was served with show cause notice demanding various amounts of customs duty on goods imported by assessee - appellant-authority-in-original held that the assessee had availed of the modvat credit and confirmed the duty demanded in the show cause notices - assessee challenged same before the customs, excise and gold (control) appellate tribunal which allowed application of assessee - hence, present appeal - held, in the absence of any such proof, demand raised by issuing the show cause notices cannot be sustained - moreover, the onus to prove that the assessee had availed of the modvat credit was on the revenue which was not done - therefore, there is no error in the impugned order of the tribunal - appeal dismissed - kerala abkari act, 1077.[ker. act no. 1/1077]. section 29 & kerala abkari shops (disposal in auction) rules (1974), rule 25-a: [s.b.sinha & d.k. jain, jj] g.o. (p) no.88/2000/td, dated 2-6-2000 - recovery of duty held, government is bound to give credit for amount realised during relevant period. valid demand can be made only in respect of balance sum and interest cannot be charged although no amount was due. strict compliance of g.o.ms. cannot be asked for. -- maxims. lex non cogit ad impossibilia: it is a well known maxim which means that nobody can be asked to do a thing which is impossible to be performed. - 4. the stand taken by the assessee is the same which had been taken before the assessing authority as well as before the tribunal......on the adjourned date of hearing, stated before the tribunal that he had not received any answer from the commissioner concerned, despite correspondence addressed to him and personal efforts made by him. on the making of this statement, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had not availed of the modvat credit on imported inputs/raw material and in the absence of any material to show that the assessee had availed of modvat credit on the inputs purchased from the local market, the demand raised by the revenue was unjustified. the tribunal, therefore, accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the adjudicating authority.learned counsel for the parties have been heard.4. the stand taken by the assessee is the same which had been taken before the assessing authority as well as before the tribunal. learned senior counsel for the revenue is not in a position to controvert the plea raised by the learned counsel for the assessee. although even before the tribunal the department was not able to verify the aspect as to whether the assessee had claimed modvat credit, the department has chosen to file appeal before this court.5. we agree with the view taken by the tribunal that in the absence of any such proof, demand raised by issuing the show cause notices cannot be sustained. moreover, the onus to prove that the assessee had availed of the modvat credit was on the revenue. accordingly, we do not find any error in the impugned order of the tribunal and consequently do not find any merit in these appeals. the appeals are, therefore, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Revenue has filed these appeals.

1. The Assessee imported silicon steel sheets and ball bearings under the Advance Licence Scheme vide Bills of Entry dated, 08th March, 1994 and 18th February, 1994 and availed duty free clearances of imported goods under Notification No. 203/92-CUS dated, 19th May 1992 which has been amended from time to time with which we are not concerned in the present case. The Assessee exported 'starter for alternator & generator assembly & solonoid switch, dynamo, slip ring ignition coil oil filled'.

2. After the export, the Assessee was served with two show cause notices dated, 16th March 1998 demanding various amounts of Customs Duty shown in the annexures to the respective show cause notices aggregating to Rs. 20,42,257.90. According to the Revenue, the Assessee had availed of the MODVAT credit on the material which it could not avail under the said notification. The Assessee, in its reply to the show cause notice, took the stand that it had not availed of the MODVAT credit on the imported inputs and that it had availed of the MODVAT credit only on the inputs/raw material purchased indigenously.

3. The authority-in-original, viz., Commissioner of Customs, held, that the Assessee had availed of the MODVAT credit and accordingly confirmed the duty demanded in the show cause notices. The Assessee challenged the Order of the Adjudicating Authority before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'). It was submitted by the Assessee before the Tribunal that it had not availed of MODVAT credit regarding imported inputs and that it had availed of the same for the input/raw material purchased from the local market. Learned members of the Tribunal afforded an opportunity to the departmental representative to verify this aspect. Departmental representative, on the adjourned date of hearing, stated before the Tribunal that he had not received any answer from the Commissioner concerned, despite correspondence addressed to him and personal efforts made by him. On the making of this statement, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Assessee had not availed of the MODVAT credit on imported inputs/raw material and in the absence of any material to show that the Assessee had availed of MODVAT credit on the inputs purchased from the local market, the demand raised by the Revenue was unjustified. The Tribunal, therefore, accepted the appeal and set aside the Order of the Adjudicating Authority.

Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard.

4. The stand taken by the Assessee is the same which had been taken before the Assessing Authority as well as before the Tribunal. Learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue is not in a position to controvert the plea raised by the learned Counsel for the Assessee. Although even before the Tribunal the Department was not able to verify the aspect as to whether the Assessee had claimed MODVAT credit, the Department has chosen to file appeal before this Court.

5. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that in the absence of any such proof, demand raised by issuing the show cause notices cannot be sustained. Moreover, the onus to prove that the Assessee had availed of the MODVAT credit was on the Revenue. Accordingly, we do not find any error in the impugned Order of the Tribunal and consequently do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial