9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it an amount of ₹ 7.5 crores (Rupees Seven crore Fifty lakhs) (50% approximately of the disputed amount) - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/675, 1060, 1182 and 1190/2009 - Stay Order Nos. S/200-203/2010-WZB/C-II/EB - Dated:- 30-7-2010 - Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy and Shri Ashok Jindal, JJ. Shri Gajendra Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K.M. Mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on export of the same, the appellants are not entitled to credit of input duty. We do not find this contention of the department prima facie tenable in view of the following decisions : (i) Repro India Ltd. v. Union of India - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 614 (Bom.); (ii) Norris Medicines Ltd. v. CCE, C, Surat - 2003 (56) R.LT 353 (CEGAT-Mum.); and (iii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the appellants are prohibited from paying duty on the parts in view of the specific provision in Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and, therefore, they cannot take duty credit on inputs used in such parts nor can they utilise the credit of duty illegally paid by them on such parts. 5. We have heard both sides in detail on this issue. In view of the specific legal provisions, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
