Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Cegat

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Cegat

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 30, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/827942

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/827942
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: R. Jayasimha Babu and ;C. Nagappan, JJ.
Decided On: Aug 30, 2001
Case Number: R.C.P. No. 6 of 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Held: Modvat credit - Limitation period for taking credit--No period was fixed under the statute or the rules made thereunder when the Appellant took the credit--No dispute about the fact that duty paid materials had been received--Limitation prescribed subsequently by notification was not given retrospective effect...

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Advocate K. Veeraraghavan, Adv.

Respondent

Cegat

Advocate Nasser Abdulla, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: 2000LC32(Madras); 2001(133)ELT535(Mad)

Excerpt

held: modvat credit - limitation period for taking credit--no period was fixed under the statute or the rules made thereunder when the appellant took the credit--no dispute about the fact that duty paid materials had been received--limitation prescribed subsequently by notification was not given retrospective effect. the tribunal's order holding that the credit taken beyond six months period was right is valid. petition dismissed.petition dismissed. - orderr. jayasimha babu, j.1. we do not find any merit in the petition. amittedly, no period of limitation had been fixed by the statute or the rules made thereunder. at the time the credit was taken there was no dispute about the fact that the materials had in fact been received and the duty had been paid thereon. the limitation prescribed subsequently by notification was not given retrospective effect. the tribunal was right in holding that the credit taken beyond six month's period is perfectly valid.2. the petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.

1. We do not find any merit in the petition. Amittedly, no period of limitation had been fixed by the statute or the rules made thereunder. At the time the credit was taken there was no dispute about the fact that the materials had in fact been received and the duty had been paid thereon. The limitation prescribed subsequently by notification was not given retrospective effect. The Tribunal was right in holding that the credit taken beyond six month's period is perfectly valid.

2. The petition is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2001 Same Parties Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Cegat Same Subject Excise Same Judge R. Jayasimha Babu and ;C. Nagappan, JJ.

Excise