9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (1) TMI 162 - AT - Central ExciseCenvat/Modvat - Modvat on inputs - Precedent - Inputs used in the manufacture of both dutiable and exempted final products under the CENVAT Credit Rules 2002 - HELD THAT - The ground taken by the Revenue to file the appeal is not satisfactory. Once the Tribunal has rendered the judgment the same is binding on the authorities unless it is stayed or reversed by the higher authority. Respectfully following the judgment cited including the Final Order Nos. 1021 to 1022/2003 dated 28-11-2003 rendered in the case of CCE Tirunelveli v. Rajapalayam Mills Ltd Other 2006 (8) TMI 488 - CESTAT CHENNAI the impugned order is confirmed by rejecting the appeal filed by Revenue.
Issues Involved: The appeal concerns the denial of Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of both dutiable and exempted final products under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002.
Issue 1 - Modvat Credit Eligibility: The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim for Modvat credit on inputs, namely LSHS and furnace oil, used in the HFO plant for electricity generation, which is further utilized in manufacturing both dutiable and exempted final products. The appellants argued that Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 does not apply to them as they use the inputs as fuel, exempting them from the rule's provisions. The Commissioner upheld this argument based on precedents like Indore Steel & Iron Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur and National Engg. Ind. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, concluding that the appellants are eligible for the credit. Issue 2 - Tribunal's Confirmation: The Tribunal, in a separate case involving similar circumstances, confirmed the Commissioner's findings, citing the applicability of relevant judgments and emphasizing that the Revenue's appeal lacks merit. The Tribunal noted the precedent set by Indore Steel & Iron Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Indore and upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the judgments cited are binding unless stayed or reversed by a higher authority. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner's order, emphasizing the binding nature of judgments unless overruled by a higher authority. The Revenue's grounds for appeal were deemed unsatisfactory, and the impugned order was upheld based on established legal precedents and interpretations of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002.
|
