The High Court disposed of an appeal challenging CESTAT's allowance of MODVAT credit based on an attested xerox copy of a Gate Pass marked Not for Modvat.
Applied orient and dispose of the appeal in the above terms with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
hvn
1
CEXA176.06
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Central Excise
..... Appellant
Versus
Mahindra & Mahindra Limited (Tractor Division) ..... Respondent
Mr. P.S. Jetly with Mr. J.B. Mishra with Mr. S.D. Bhosale for the appellant.
Mr. Anil Wani with Ms. Supriya Devergudi i/by M/s. ANS Law Associates for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR &
R.D. DHANUKA, JJ.
DATE : 12th SEPTEMBER, 2012.
P.C. :
attested xerox copy of Gate Pass especially when such attestation was clearly marked “Not for Modvat” and no permission was sought from the Department before taking such credit.
when there is no provision in the MODVAT Rules for taking such credit.
impugned order is that the assessee had received inputs on which duty has been paid
hvn
2
CEXA176.06
and that the final products manufactured out of the said inputs have been cleared on payment of duty. In these circumstances and in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Bombay Goods Transport Association Vs. Union of India reported in 1995 77 ELT 521 (Bom) we uphold the decision of the CESTAT and dispose of the appeal in the above terms with no order as to costs.
(R.D. DHANUKA, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether CESTAT was correct in allowing modvat credit on attested xerox copy of Gate Pass marked Not for Modvat.
Whether credit can be allowed on attested xerox copy of Gate Pass when there is no provision in the MODVAT Rules for taking such credit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bombay Goods Transport Association Vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶23
1995 77 ELT 521
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner of Central Excise
Mahindra & Mahindra Limited (Tractor Division)
J.P. DEVADHAR
R.D. DHANUKA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
