Supersum Laminations Plastic Vs. Collr. of C. Excise

Supersum Laminations Plastic vs Collr. of C. Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 06, 1994

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/7636

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/7636
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Jul 06, 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

Supersum Laminations Plastic

Advocate Shri. B.B. Gujral

Respondent

Collr. of C. Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (1994)(73)ELT373TriDel

Excerpt

.....which is an additional ground, he pleaded that unconditional stay may be granted.2. shri k.n. gupta, learned sdr advanced arguments for the department.he stated that the triplicate copy of the bill of entry is essential for availment of modvat credit and if the same is lost and a certified copy is obtained by the manufacturer claiming modvat credit there is risk of multiple availment of credit. he referred to the amendment of rule 57g providing for the production of the original duty paying documents as an essential condition for taking modvat credit. he also contended that the earlier procedure by which modvat credit could be availed of by the manufacturers on execution of suitable indemnity and furnishing other safeguards in cases of loss of duty paying documents has been withdrawn and such withdrawal is final and would also extend to past cases which may be awaiting disposal now. in the circumstances he opposed the plea for stay.3. shri gujral in his brief rejoinder stated that they have taken the modvat credit in question at a time when the liberal approach in case of loss of the documents was in force. only subsequently was the said instruction withdrawn and such withdrawal cannot have retrospective effect. he reiterated his plea for unconditional stay.4. we have considered the submissions. on merits the issue is arguable and a decision can be taken only after elaborate examination of the issues involved. for the purpose of stay with which we are concerned, we take note of the financial hardship pleaded by the petitioners in view of their unit being declared as a sick one and bifr study in progress. in the circumstances, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of the disputed amount for the hearing of the appeal. the petitioners should give an undertaking that their fixed assets shall not be alienated during the pendency of the appeal. the appeal to be posted for hearing in due course.

Full Judgment

1. Shri B.B. Gujral, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case modvat credit had been taken on the strength of certified copy of the triplicate copy of bill of entry, since the triplicate copy itself had been misplaced. According to the provisions of the Evidence Act, the certified copy given by the Customs House is an acceptable evidence. In addition, they had obtained endorsement from the importer of the goods who had sold the entire quantity covered by the bill of entry in question to the appellants that they had not taken any modvat credit. A further endorsement has been given on the copy of the bill of entry that the appellants had also not taken any credit otherwise. In the circumstances, Shri Gujral pleaded that they have a strong prima facie case. He also relied upon the decision of the SRB reported in 1993 (48) ECR 484. He also pleaded that the petitioners have been declared a sick unit and BIFR proceedings are in progress. In view of the financial hardship which is an additional ground, he pleaded that unconditional stay may be granted.

2. Shri K.N. Gupta, learned SDR advanced arguments for the Department.

He stated that the triplicate copy of the bill of entry is essential for availment of modvat credit and if the same is lost and a certified copy is obtained by the manufacturer claiming modvat credit there is risk of multiple availment of credit. He referred to the amendment of Rule 57G providing for the production of the original duty paying documents as an essential condition for taking modvat credit. He also contended that the earlier procedure by which modvat credit could be availed of by the manufacturers on execution of suitable indemnity and furnishing other safeguards in cases of loss of duty paying documents has been withdrawn and such withdrawal is final and would also extend to past cases which may be awaiting disposal now. In the circumstances he opposed the plea for stay.

3. Shri Gujral in his brief rejoinder stated that they have taken the modvat credit in question at a time when the liberal approach in case of loss of the documents was in force. Only subsequently was the said instruction withdrawn and such withdrawal cannot have retrospective effect. He reiterated his plea for unconditional stay.

4. We have considered the submissions. On merits the issue is arguable and a decision can be taken only after elaborate examination of the issues involved. For the purpose of stay with which we are concerned, we take note of the financial hardship pleaded by the petitioners in view of their Unit being declared as a sick one and BIFR study in progress. In the circumstances, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of the disputed amount for the hearing of the appeal. The petitioners should give an undertaking that their fixed assets shall not be alienated during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal to be posted for hearing in due course.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Supersum Laminations Plastic vs Collr. of C. Excise Same Subject Service Tax