Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cegat

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Cegat

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 30, 2001
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/827960

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
R.C.P. No. 5 of 2001
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Advocate K. Veeraraghavan, Adv.

Respondent

Cegat

Advocate None

Legal References

Reported In
2001(133)ELT542(Mad)

Excerpt

- orderr. jayasimha babu, j.1. the respondent, though served, has not chosen to appear in person, or through counsel.2. having heard counsel for the revenue, we are satisfied that a question requiring our consideration does arise.3. the tribunal is directed to refer the following question of law :'whether the assessee is entitled to modvat credits on inputs received under the cover of gate passes endorsed after 1-4-94, despite the terms of the notification no. 16/94 dated 30-3-1994 ?'2. the tribunal is directed to submit a statement of the case together with the relevant materials for the purpose of deciding the question.

Full Judgment

ORDER

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.

1. The respondent, though served, has not chosen to appear in person, or through Counsel.

2. Having heard Counsel for the Revenue, we are satisfied that a question requiring our consideration does arise.

3. The Tribunal is directed to refer the following question of law :

'Whether the assessee is entitled to Modvat credits on inputs received under the cover of gate passes endorsed after 1-4-94, despite the terms of the Notification No. 16/94 dated 30-3-1994 ?'

2. The Tribunal is directed to submit a statement of the case together with the relevant materials for the purpose of deciding the question.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial