Ecko Cables (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Ecko Cables (P) Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 10, 1994

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/7529

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/7529
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: May 10, 1994
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

Ecko Cables (P) Ltd.

Respondent

Collector of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (1994)(72)ELT290TriDel

Excerpt

.....advocate and shri v.k.sharma, learned sdr.3. we find that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessees by order no. a/927-930/93-nrb, dated 17-11-1993 in the case of devi dayal and mahendra corporation and anr. v. cce, new delhi in which the certificate issued by hindustan copper ltd., which is a public sector has been accepted as a duty paying documents in terms of rule 57g(2).the tribunal has relied upon the trade notice no. f. 267/17/88-cx. b, 19-2-1988 which recognises that the certificates issued by the public sector undertaking/canalising agencies like mmtc/stc are duty paying documents. learned sdr is not correct in his submission that this trade notice of 19-2-1988 is not relevant to the issue in dispute and in fact, it is very germane to the issue and directly covers the case of the appellants. his argument that it is only the certificates issued by mmtc/stc who have been authorised by the trade notice to issue certificates for availment of proforma credit (and subsequently extended to modvat credit) has been explicitly negatived in para 6 of the order of the tribunal (supra). to our minds there is no distinction between devi dayal and mahendra corporation case (supra) and this appeal. accordingly following the above ratio, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of modvat credit during the period on the basis of the certificates issued by hindustan copper ltd., set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal as already pronounced in open court.

Full Judgment

1. The eligibility of copper wire bars and copper wire rods received by the appellants for the manufac-:ure of their final products, electric wires and cables to the benefit of modvat credit during the period 4-5-1988 to 1-6-1988 on the basis of the certificates issued by Hindustan Copper Ltd., indicating payment of duty @ Rs. 6,200/-r'MT, is the issue that arises for determination in this appeal. The benefit has been denied on the ground that these certificates are not duty paying docu-nents within the meaning of Rule 57G and, therefore, modvat to the extent of Rs. 3,300/- PMT as per CBEC order No. 342/1/88-TRU, dated 20-5-1988 alone was allowed and the appellants were called upon to deposit the balance demand of differential duty of Rs. 59,168.38. Hence this appeal.

2. We have heard Shri R. Nambirajan, learned Advocate and Shri V.K.Sharma, learned SDR.3. We find that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessees by Order No. A/927-930/93-NRB, dated 17-11-1993 in the case of Devi Dayal and Mahendra Corporation and Anr. v. CCE, New Delhi in which the certificate issued by Hindustan Copper Ltd., which is a public sector has been accepted as a duty paying documents in terms of Rule 57G(2).

The Tribunal has relied upon the Trade Notice No. F. 267/17/88-CX. B, 19-2-1988 which recognises that the certificates issued by the Public Sector Undertaking/Canalising Agencies like MMTC/STC are duty paying documents. Learned SDR is not correct in his submission that this trade notice of 19-2-1988 is not relevant to the issue in dispute and in fact, it is very germane to the issue and directly covers the case of the appellants. His argument that it is only the certificates issued by MMTC/STC who have been authorised by the Trade Notice to issue certificates for availment of proforma credit (and subsequently extended to Modvat credit) has been explicitly negatived in para 6 of the order of the Tribunal (supra). To our minds there is no distinction between Devi Dayal and Mahendra Corporation case (supra) and this appeal. Accordingly following the above ratio, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit during the period on the basis of the certificates issued by Hindustan Copper Ltd., set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal as already pronounced in open court.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Ecko Cables (P) Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax