9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 626 - AT - Central ExciseCaptive Consumption - Clinker - benefit of N/N. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 - clinker captively consumed within the factory for the manufacture of Cement cleared availing benefit under N/N. 2/2001-CE dated 27.01.2001 and 16/2001-CE dated 26.03.2001 as amended - period February 2001 to May 2001 - HELD THAT - This issue has been considered in the case of TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX. (LTU), BANGALORE 2008 (9) TMI 254 - CESTAT BANGALORE , wherein, it was held that the benefit of Exemption N/N. 67/95 is available even for the period prior to the amendment Notification No. 31/2001-CE. The Exemption under N/N. 67/95-CE was also extended for the period prior to the amendment made by N/N. 31/2001-CE. - the appellant is entitled for the Exemption N/N. 67/95-CE even for the period prior to N/N. 31/2001-CE i.e. for the period February, 2001 to May 2001. CENVAT Credit - remand order to Commissioner - HELD THAT - It is open for the Commissioner to decide the issue of reversal of credit and consequent relief i.e. grant of Exemption N/N. 67/95-CE - the order is grant and proper to the extent it, dropped the demand on the basis of reversal of credit - Appeal of Revenue dismissed. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
- Entitlement for Exemption Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 in respect of clinker captively consumed within the factory for the manufacture of Cement cleared availing benefit under Notification No. 2/2001-CE dated 27.01.2001 and 16/2001-CE dated 26.03.2001 as amended. Detailed Analysis: 1. Assessee's Appeal (Period: February 2001 to May 2001): The issue revolved around whether the appellant was entitled to the Exemption Notification No. 67/95-CE even for the period before the amendment by Notification No. 31/2001-CE. The appellant contended that a similar issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd., where the demand was set aside. Referring to judgments like Sri Balaji Cable Industries and Parmali Wallace Ltd, the appellant argued in favor of entitlement to the exemption. 2. Revenue's Appeal (Period: April 2002 to March 2004): The Revenue's appeal focused on the Commissioner's decision related to the reversal of credit and grant of Exemption Notification No. 67/95-CE. The appellant argued that the Commissioner overstepped by deciding the issue of reversal of credit as the Tribunal's order was limited to considering Section 71 of the Finance Act, 2010. However, the Tribunal found that the remand order did not restrict the Commissioner from deciding on the reversal of credit and consequent relief, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. 3. Tribunal's Decision: After considering submissions from both sides, the Tribunal held that the Exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE was applicable even for the period before the amendment by Notification No. 31/2001-CE. The Tribunal also clarified that the remand order did not limit the Commissioner's authority to address issues like reversal of credit, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal and the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment established the entitlement of the appellant to the Exemption Notification No. 67/95-CE for the specified periods and clarified the Commissioner's authority to address additional issues beyond the remand order. The decision was based on legal interpretations, precedents, and the specific provisions of the relevant notifications and acts.
|
