9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 639 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - inputs and input services used in the power plant - electricity supplied to the different units, beyond factory premises - Whether, the CESTAT was justified in not relying the case of SINTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE 2013 (6) TMI 178 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III 2009 (8) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT and M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd versus CCE, Ahmedabad, 2009 (8) TMI 96 - SC ORDER , wherein the facts are similar to the present case? HELD THAT - The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assessee relied upon its own order dated 09.04.2015 passed in the case of the very same assessee but Revenue has not thought fit to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal dated 09.04.2015 referred to in Paragraph No.4 of the impugned order. Well if that be the position, then we see no good reason to look into the matter any further - the two questions of law, as proposed by the Revenue cannot be termed as substantial questions of law - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Cenvat credit on inputs and input services used in a power plant beyond factory premises. 2. Justification of not relying on previous similar cases by the Tribunal. Issue 1: The High Court considered a Tax Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where the Revenue challenged an order by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The main issue revolved around whether Cenvat credit on inputs and input services used in a power plant, beyond the factory premises, could be availed by the respondent. The Tribunal had previously allowed the appeal of the assessee based on its own order dated 09.04.2015. The Tribunal's decision was supported by various legal precedents and interpretations, emphasizing that the generation of by-products during the manufacturing process did not necessarily disqualify the availing of Cenvat credit. The High Court noted that the Revenue had not challenged the Tribunal's previous order, and as such, there was no need to delve further into the matter. The Court also cited a previous case, Commissioner of C.Ex & Customs, Vadodara-I Vs. Sterling-Gelatin, where similar questions of law were considered, and the Court's decision favored the assessee, emphasizing prevention of unjust enrichment to the revenue in cases of double taxation on the same input used for both dutiable and exempted products. Issue 2: The second issue involved the justification of the Tribunal in not relying on previous similar cases, specifically M/s. Sintex Industries Ltd., M/s. Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III, and M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd versus CCE, Ahmedabad. The Tribunal's decision was based on its own order and relevant legal interpretations, which were upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court in subsequent appeals. The High Court dismissed the Revenue's proposed questions of law as not substantial, given the precedents and legal reasoning provided in the judgment. The Court emphasized the importance of preventing double taxation and unjust enrichment to the revenue, as highlighted in the previous cases and legal interpretations, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal. This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies and interpretations involved in the case, highlighting the application of relevant legal provisions and precedents to arrive at a just decision.
|
