Uni Deritend Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex., - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/27631
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided OnFeb-20-2002
JudgeJ Balasundaram, J T J.H.
Reported in(2002)(142)ELT454Tri(Mum.)bai
AppellantUni Deritend Limited
RespondentCommissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.,
Excerpt:
1. miscellaneous application no. e/ma(eh)-755/2001-mum. for the early hearing of the stay application is dismissed as infructuous since the stay application itself stands listed for hearing today.2. the stay application is for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of rs. 50,000/- which has been imposed upon the applicants on the ground that they were not entitled to modvat credit of rs. 2,38,528/- on high speed diesel since the invoices issued by m/s. iocl did not contain certain particulars. the credit amount disallowed already stands paid and hence this application is confined to the waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amount only.3. on hearing both sides, we are satisfied that the lack of particulars given by m/s. iocl in its invoices should not be a ground for imposition of penalty upon the applicant who has received the inputs from m/s. iocl. we, therefore, waive the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty amount and stay its recovery thereof pending this appeal.
Judgment:
1. Miscellaneous Application No. E/MA(EH)-755/2001-Mum. for the early hearing of the stay application is dismissed as infructuous since the stay application itself stands listed for hearing today.

2. The stay application is for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- which has been imposed upon the applicants on the ground that they were not entitled to Modvat credit of Rs. 2,38,528/- on high speed diesel since the invoices issued by M/s. IOCL did not contain certain particulars. The credit amount disallowed already stands paid and hence this application is confined to the waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amount only.

3. On hearing both sides, we are satisfied that the lack of particulars given by M/s. IOCL in its invoices should not be a ground for imposition of penalty upon the applicant who has received the inputs from M/s. IOCL. We, therefore, waive the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty amount and stay its recovery thereof pending this appeal.