9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments on dutiable final products, needs to disallowed when the final products, get subsequently exempted by notification issued under Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944 ? (b) Whether the Tribunal was correct in following the decision of the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Union of India - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 302 when the issue was covered by a decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Good Year India Ltd. v. Union of India - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 39. 2. Shri B.V. Sankaranarayana Rao, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that the questions of law arises since the view taken by the Tribunal to contrary to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Good Year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. He submitted that since that was the correct position at the time of passing the order, no question of law arises and there was no necessity to refer the question for further consideration. 4. Shri Sankaranarayana Rao said that subsequent to the decision of the Larger Bench, the Supreme Court has taken a different view in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.). In that case, the Supreme Court has taken the view that - the credit availed and utilised during the period when final products dutiable - Credit not be reversed when subsequently final product exempted from duty, credit having been taken validly and its benefit being available to manufacturer without any limitation in time. He said tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he High Court. I also find force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue that subsequent decision of the Supreme Court or High Court or of a Tribunal is not to form a base for rectifying the mistakes in terms of Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act 1964, relying upon the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Gujarat Steel and Chem. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central Excise, Vadodara reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 282. It was further argued that on the same analogy subsequent decision of the Supreme Court is not a ground to refer the matter to the High Court for its considered opinion. Concurring with the pleas taken by the Revenue, I do not find any force in the pleas taken by the party to refer the questions of law to the Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
