Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2000 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (1) TMI 474 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Maintainability of appeals with amounts below Rs. 50,000 2. Denial of Modvat credit for inputs without accompanying certificates Issue 1: Maintainability of appeals with amounts below Rs. 50,000: The Tribunal considered the preliminary objection raised by the Departmental Representative regarding the maintainability of appeals with amounts below Rs. 50,000. The appellants argued that certain appeals had amounts exceeding a lakh of rupees each and were based on common orders by the Commissioner. They contended that the Commissioner's order ignored previous Tribunal decisions on identical issues, rendering it legally invalid. The Tribunal agreed that the Commissioner's order was not in line with Tribunal decisions and, therefore, overruled the objection raised by the Departmental Representative. Issue 2: Denial of Modvat credit for inputs without accompanying certificates: The appeals involved manufacturers claiming Modvat credit for inputs where the certificates of payment of duty were obtained after the removal of the inputs. The Commissioner had denied Modvat credit on the grounds that the certificates did not accompany the goods at the time of removal. However, the Tribunal referred to a trade notice stating that Modvat credit should not be denied solely based on the mismatch of dates between the removal of goods and the certificate issuance. The Tribunal held that the lower appellate authority was unjustified in denying Modvat credit and emphasized that manufacturers could claim Modvat credit even if the certificates were issued after the removal but before claiming the credit. The Tribunal asserted that the Commissioner should have followed Tribunal decisions and administrative instructions, setting aside the Commissioner's order and allowing the appeals of the 12 appellants. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, ruling in favor of the appellants based on the issues discussed above.
|