Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cegat

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Cegat

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 12, 2000

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/823274

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/823274
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: R. Jayasimha Babu and ;F.M. Ibrahim Kalifullah, JJ.
Decided On: Oct 12, 2000
Case Number: R.C.P. Nos. 15-16 of 1999
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

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

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

Respondent

Cegat

Advocate None

Legal References

Acts: Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57G
Reported In: 2001(129)ELT43(Mad)

Excerpt

- orderr. jayasimha babu, j.1. notice had been sent to the respondent by registered post acknowledgement due. the acknowledgement has not been received. that, however, does not necessarily warrant the inference that the notice has not been served. the cover has not been returned. in the circumstances, we consider it reasonable to inter that notice has been served on the respondent.2. we have heard the counsel for the revenue. the tribunal has held that despite a declaration not having been filed under rule 57g of the central excise rules, 1944 a manufacturer is entitled to claim modvat credit. this is a matter which gives rise to a question of law which requires our consideration.3. the tribunal is, therefore, directed to refer the following question of law, and submit a statement of case together with the relevant records and documents :'whether the modvat credit can be extended on inputs even in cases where the manufacturer has not made the necessary declaration under rule 57g

Full Judgment

ORDER

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.

1. Notice had been sent to the respondent by registered post acknowledgement due. The acknowledgement has not been received. That, however, does not necessarily warrant the inference that the notice has not been served. The cover has not been returned. In the circumstances, we consider it reasonable to inter that notice has been served on the respondent.

2. We have heard the counsel for the Revenue. The Tribunal has held that despite a declaration not having been filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 a manufacturer is entitled to claim Modvat credit. This is a matter which gives rise to a question of law which requires our consideration.

3. The Tribunal is, therefore, directed to refer the following question of law, and submit a statement of case together with the relevant records and documents :

'Whether the Modvat credit can be extended on inputs even in cases where the manufacturer has not made the necessary declaration under Rule 57G

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2000 Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Cegat Same Subject Excise Same Judge R. Jayasimha Babu and ;F.M. Ibrahim Kalifullah, JJ. Acts & Sections Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57G

Excise