Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.56 seconds)
Murugappa Morgan Thermal Ceramics Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 3 June, 2016 cites

M/S. Pricol Ltd vs Cce, Coimbatore on 5 January, 2015

5. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the records. The point to be decided in this case is whether the invoices that are issued in the name of Head office are eligible for availment of credit by the factory. The appellant is a manufacturer of Ceramic Fiber Products and are registered with Service tax department. The credit which was held to be ineligible in the present dispute is for the reason that the appellants had availed the credit of excise duty paid by their Head office at Chennai and that they were not registered as Input Service Distributor during the period April 2011 to March 2012. It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant had also involved themselves in trading activities and the credit to that extent ought not to have been taken. Both sides have made their respective pleas with regard to eligibility or otherwise. I find that this issue is covered in the light of case laws cited by the appellant. From the above case laws, I find that this Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Pricol Ltd. Vs CCE Coimbatore  2015 (38) STR 668 (Tri.-Chennai) is directly on the issue on hand wherein the Tribunal has held that procedural law deserves to be construed as directory instead of mandatory for its application. The relevant paragraphs 7 & 8 of the Tribunal's decision are reproduced as under :-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Sambhaji & Ors vs Gangabai & Ors on 20 November, 2008

8.?When substantial law has granted relief, it is only procedural law that has dragged the appellant to the litigation. As a result of which the substantial relief granted by rule making authority, deprived the appellant from its genuine claim of credit due to delay in registration process prescribed. We may state that procedure is not tyrant of the law but is servant thereof and justice cannot be denied for reasons attributable to the procedural law. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sambhaji v. Gangabai - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) held that procedural law should not dominate over the substantial law to deprive the litigant from the process of justice. Therefore, the procedural law deserves to be construed as directory instead of mandatory for its application. Paras 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the judgment are reproduced to appreciate the jurisprudence on the procedural law. 9.?All the rules of procedure are the handmaids of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual (sic) law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 99 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1