Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cegat

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Cegat

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Dec 11, 2000

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/823178

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/823178
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: R. Jayasimha Babu and ;K. Gnanaprakasam, JJ.
Decided On: Dec 11, 2000
Case Number: R.C.P. No. 8 of 2000
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Excise
Acts & sections: Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57G(3)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Advocate K. Veeraghavan, A.C.G.S.C

Respondent

Cegat

Advocate K. Jayachandran, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57G(3)
Reported In: 2001(128)ELT375(Mad)

Excerpt

- orderr. jayasimha babu, j.1. we heard the counsel at some length under the impression that answer is required to be given to the question and that what was before us is a reference. we have therefore had occasion to examine the matter more deeply that what we would have done otherwise. having heard the counsel and having perused the relevant rules, we are satisfied that the questions proposed do arise and require our consideration. the tribunal is directed to refer the question as to whether the tribunal was correct in extending modvat credit on inputs received under cover of endorsed invoice when such endorsement is not a document prescribed under rule 57g(3) of the central excise rules, 1944. the tribunal shall also send a statement of case together with the materials relevant for answering the question.

Full Judgment

ORDER

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.

1. We heard the Counsel at some length under the impression that answer is required to be given to the question and that what was before us is a reference. We have therefore had occasion to examine the matter more deeply that what we would have done otherwise. Having heard the Counsel and having perused the relevant rules, we are satisfied that the questions proposed do arise and require our consideration. The Tribunal is directed to refer the question as to whether the Tribunal was correct in extending Modvat credit on inputs received under cover of endorsed invoice when such endorsement is not a document prescribed under Rule 57G(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal shall also send a statement of case together with the materials relevant for answering the question.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2000 Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Cegat Same Subject Excise Same Judge R. Jayasimha Babu and ;K. Gnanaprakasam, JJ. Acts & Sections Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57G(3)

Excise Together with