Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Final Order No. E/1017/98-B1 arising from in Appeal No. E/3456/91-B1. Case: Collector of C. Ex., Chandigarh Vs Unique Hydrolics Pvt. Ltd.. Central Information Commission

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberFinal Order No. E/1017/98-B1 arising from in Appeal No. E/3456/91-B1
CounselFor Appellant: Shri H.K. Saran, SDR and For Respondents: Ms. Ginny Bedi, Advocate.
JudgesShri G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J) and C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
IssueCentral Excise Act
Judgement DateJuly 03, 1998
CourtCentral Information Commission

Order:

G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J), (New Delhi)

  1. Heard both sides.

  2. The Assistant Collector has denied the concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 175/86 on the ground that the appellant did not avail the Modvat credit during the period for which the demand has been raised. On appeal filed by the assessee, the Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal observing that their clearance did not exceed the limit of Rs. 15 lakhs which is covered by full exemption in the event of credit not being availed.

  3. Ms. Ginny Bedi, referring to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jai Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1993 (68) ELT 475, submitted that mere filing of Modvat declaration or payment of duty at concessional rate not to disentitle the assessee to benefit of para a(ii) of Notification No. 175/86-C.E.

  4. We have carefully considered the submissions. In the case referred to above, it was observed that there is nothing in Notification No. 175/86...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT