Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2009 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2009 (10) TMI 629 - HC - Central Excise


Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding abatement entitlement.
2. Correctness of remanding the case for considering Modvat benefit after a clear finding in the Order-in-Original.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of goods manufactured by the assessee under specific sub-headings. The Original authority had initially demanded duty and imposed penalties, which were subsequently modified by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The CESTAT upheld the classification of cotton core yarn under Chapter Sub-Heading 5205.11 and vacated the penalty under Rule 173Q. The Tribunal also determined that the assessee was eligible for Modvat credit and abatements under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the original authority to consider the benefit under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) based on the available materials. The appellant challenged this remittal order, arguing that the matter had already been considered and denied. However, the Court found that the remittal order was not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and did not involve any substantial question of law for appeal under Section 35(q) of the Central Excise Act.

Issue 2: Correctness of remanding for Modvat benefit consideration
The Tribunal's decision to remand the case for reconsideration of the Modvat benefit under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) was based on the assessee's entitlement during the relevant period. The Tribunal held that the assessee could establish their claim with documents showing payment of duty on related inputs. The appellant contended that the remittal order was unnecessary as the modvat benefit entitlement had already been considered. However, the Court found that the remittal order did not prejudice the Revenue's interests and did not involve any substantial question of law for appeal under the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) interpretation and the correctness of remanding for Modvat benefit consideration. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the remittal order was not prejudicial and did not involve substantial legal questions, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates