Panamid Treads Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy

Panamid Treads vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Nov 05, 2009

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/943013

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/943013
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Judge: The Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member &Amp; the Honourable Mr. P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Decided On: Nov 05, 2009
Case Number: Appeal No.E/368 of 2003
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

Panamid Treads

Advocate Shri Abraham Markos, Advocate. Shri C.Rangaraju, SDR

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy

Excerpt

per dr.chittaranjan satapathy heard both sides. shri abrahim morkes, ld. advocate appearing for the appellants states that the impugned goods were sent directly from the supplier to the job worker on behalf of the appellants. the job worker’s employees went on a strike at that time and hence goods were returned by the job worker to the appellants after about 10 months. the appellants have taken credit in respect of the impugned goods after a few days thereafter. the department has denied the credit on the ground that the same has been taken 9 months after the issue of the relevant documents. ld. advocate pleads that since late receipt of the goods was beyond the control of the appellants, as a special case, duty credit should be allowed. 2. heard ld. sdr shri rangaraju. he states that, as per the rules, the duty credit can be taken only within 9 months. he further states that this provision of the rule has been upheld by the hon’ble supreme court. he further states that there is no provision in the rule to relax the period of 9 months even in genuine cases. 3. after hearing both sides, we find that relevant rules do not permit taking of credit in such a case where the goods are received through job worker beyond the period of 9 months. hence, the impugned orders passed by the authorities below are in accordance with law and the same require no interference. however, considering the argument that the appellants had genuine difficulty beyond their control, the penalty imposed on the appellants is waived. the appeal is otherwise dismissed except for waiver of the penalty amount.

Full Judgment

Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy

Heard both sides. Shri Abrahim Morkes, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the impugned goods were sent directly from the supplier to the job worker on behalf of the appellants. The job worker’s employees went on a strike at that time and hence goods were returned by the job worker to the appellants after about 10 months. The appellants have taken credit in respect of the impugned goods after a few days thereafter. The department has denied the credit on the ground that the same has been taken 9 months after the issue of the relevant documents. Ld. Advocate pleads that since late receipt of the goods was beyond the control of the appellants, as a special case, duty credit should be allowed.

2. Heard ld. SDR Shri Rangaraju. He states that, as per the rules, the duty credit can be taken only within 9 months. He further states that this provision of the rule has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further states that there is no provision in the rule to relax the period of 9 months even in genuine cases.

3. After hearing both sides, we find that relevant rules do not permit taking of credit in such a case where the goods are received through job worker beyond the period of 9 months. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the authorities below are in accordance with law and the same require no interference. However, considering the argument that the appellants had genuine difficulty beyond their control, the penalty imposed on the appellants is waived. The appeal is otherwise dismissed except for waiver of the penalty amount.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chen... Same Parties Panamid Treads vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge The Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member &...