Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2001 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2001 (2) TMI 483 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Benefit of money credit facility under Notification No. 46/89-C.E. (N.T.) withdrawn. 2. Request to utilize unutilized credit balance. 3. High Court's judgment allowing utilization of accumulated credit. 4. Order of Asstt. Commissioner permitting utilization of credit. 5. Appeal filed by Department against Asstt. Commissioner's order. 6. Commissioner (Appeals) upholding Asstt. Commissioner's order. 7. Present appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order. Analysis: 1. The appellant, a soap manufacturer availing money credit facility under a specific notification, had the benefit withdrawn upon rescinding of the notification. An unutilized credit balance of Rs. 7,76,991.17 existed post-withdrawal. 2. Despite the withdrawal, the appellant sought permission to utilize the unutilized credit, which was initially rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner, leading to a Writ Petition in the High Court. 3. The High Court, in line with previous judgments, allowed the appellant to utilize the accumulated credit, citing the principle of promissory estoppel and directed the authorities to permit the same. 4. Subsequently, the Asstt. Commissioner issued an order permitting the appellant to utilize the credit for earlier clearances made on their final product. 5. The Department appealed against the Asstt. Commissioner's order, which was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) relying on a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the rights accrued to manufacturers even after the withdrawal of a scheme. 6. The present appeal challenges the Commissioner (Appeals) order, arguing for setting it aside based on a different High Court judgment. The respondent, however, relies on the settled issue in their favor as per the High Court's order. 7. The Tribunal upheld the High Court's specific order in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the settled issue between the parties cannot be disturbed, even if a contrary view was taken in another case. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the lower authorities' decisions.
|