Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the appeal is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. the order of the commissioner impugned in this appeal held that the goods imported by the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of notification 203/92 for the reason that modvat credit has been availed of in the manufacture of the goods export of which resulted in grant of advance licence, permitting the notification to be availed of.3. the counsel for the appellant shows before us evidence in the form of a certificate from the superintendent that movat credit was taken but was reversed before 1997, and that therefore the goods would be covered by the ratio of the unreported judgment of the supreme court in raj exports vs national aluminium co & ors (appeals 8756/96). he agrees that these details were not given to the commissioner and attributes to the severe illness of the employee of the appellant. in these circumstances, we think that the commissioner should have an opportunity to consider this aspect.4. accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order remanding them matter to the commissioner for a decision on this aspect in accordance with law.

Judgment:
1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.

2. The order of the Commissioner impugned in this appeal held that the goods imported by the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of notification 203/92 for the reason that modvat credit has been availed of in the manufacture of the goods export of which resulted in grant of advance licence, permitting the notification to be availed of.

3. The counsel for the appellant shows before us evidence in the form of a certificate from the Superintendent that movat credit was taken but was reversed before 1997, and that therefore the goods would be covered by the ratio of the unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Exports vs National Aluminium Co & Ors (Appeals 8756/96). He agrees that these details were not given to the Commissioner and attributes to the severe illness of the employee of the appellant. In these circumstances, we think that the Commissioner should have an opportunity to consider this aspect.

4. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order remanding them matter to the Commissioner for a decision on this aspect in accordance with law.