9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity of appeals, which are items, 1 to 4, 8, 9, 11 and 12. In these appeals amounts in dispute is below Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore second proviso to Section 35B(1)(d) of the Act comes into operation. As per that proviso Tribunal is to refuse admission if the amount of duty involved does not exceed Rs. 50,000/- 2. The preliminary objection raised by the learned DR was met by the learned Counsel representing the appellants in these cases by stating that appeals 12 in number arise out of the common order passed by the Commissioner, that in four appeals, items 5, 6, 7 and 10, the amounts in dispute are more than a lakh of rupees each and that, the issue raised in those four appeals are to be dealt with on merits where the Tribunal is not prevent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the learned DR. 4. As the issue raised in these appeals are common and we heard the learned Counsel representing the appellants and the learned DR in extenso, we consider it advantageous to dispose of these appeals now itself. 5. In all these appeals the appellants are manufacturers of goods excisable to duty under the Central Excise Act. In the manufacture of their goods, they use inputs which were subjected to payment of duty. They obtained the inputs from its manufacturers. Certificate of payment of duty on those inputs were obtained subsequent to the dates of removal of those inputs. The question now urged before us is whether the manufacturer who got the certificate of payment of duty on the inputs on a date later to date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods, the manufacturers was allowed to avail Modvat credit when the certificates were issued by excise authorities on subsequent dates but prior to the dates on which Modvat credit was actually taken by the manufacturers. The above decisions of the tribunal are binding on the Commissioner. We do not find any justifiable reason for the Commissioner to ignore the authoritative pronouncements made by this Tribunal. Tribunal decision is binding on the Commissioner and he should have followed the same. The impugned order was passed ignoring the judicial pronouncements of this Tribunal and the administrative instructions issued by the department, referred to above. In these circumstances we set aside the impugned order in so far as it relates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
