2019 (3) TMI 791 - HC - Central Excise

100% EOU - Benefit of duty free removal of Modvat credit denied - N/N. 1/95 CE dated 4.1.1995 - Held that - The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in terms of the observations in M/s.Lakshmi Machine Works Limited 2008 (10) TMI 57 - CESTAT CHENNAI - the matter shall be clubbed and heard together with other connected matters - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of the Larger Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Substantial questions of law raised regarding denial of duty-free removal of Modvat credit availed inputs to 100% EOU, denial of Modvat credit on inputs supplied to 100% EOU, denial of duty-free clearance of Modvat credit availed inputs, denial of benefit of procurement of spares by a 100% EOU without payment of duty, and interpretation of Notification No.1/95 CE dated 4.1.95.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the order of the Larger Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The substantial questions of law raised included the denial of duty-free removal of Modvat credit availed inputs to 100% EOU, denial of Modvat credit on inputs supplied to 100% EOU, and denial of duty-free clearance of Modvat credit availed inputs based on the grounds of manufacturing. Additionally, the denial of the benefit of procurement of spares by a 100% EOU without payment of duty was contested, along with the interpretation of Notification No.1/95 CE dated 4.1.95. The appellant argued that the denial of these benefits was not justified under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the procedural conditions were wrongly interpreted as substantive conditions.

The High Court considered the arguments put forth by both parties and referred to a previous case involving similar substantial questions of law. In the case of M/s.Lakshmi Machine Works Limited, the High Court had remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration based on observations made in their order. The Court highlighted a decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, emphasizing the entitlement to exemption of payment of duty under specific circumstances. The Court found that the matters required reconsideration by the Tribunal in light of the legal position established in previous cases.

The Court noted that the order passed by the Tribunal in the present case was by a Bench consisting of three Members, unlike the previous case with two Members. However, the Court maintained consistency in its approach and allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The Court directed that the matter should be heard together with other connected matters and left the substantial questions of law open for further examination by the Tribunal. No costs were awarded in this decision.