9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Judgment per: Deepak Gupta, J.]. - This excise reference was admitted on the following questions of law:- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in allowing benefit of Rule 57T(7) of the Central Excise Rules. 1944 to M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. Solan holding them as a manufacturer when the manufacturer for the impugned D.G. Sets was categorically M/s. WDIL (and not M/s. GACL) as evident from Purchase Order No. GACL/HIM/LCI/124 dated 31-1-97 as per which M/s. WDIL were to supply two D.C. Sets valued at Rs. 15.50 Crores? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in allowing the benefit under Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 when the D.C. Sets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory for the manufacturing of cement at Darlaghat within the State of Himachal Pradesh. The respondent while setting up the factory also got installed a DGPP through another Company M/s. Wartsila Diesel India Ltd. (WDIL). WDIL further contracted out some of the works of the plant, especially the erection of the cooling tower to M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Pvt. Ltd. It is not disputed that the DCPP is used for running the factory of the respondent when there is power cut in the area in question. 4. On behalf of the Revenue the main ground taken is that since the DGPP is not exigible to excise the question of giving Modvat credit for the same does not arise. It has also been urged that the DGPP is not used for the manufacture of the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and another) which reference was rejected by a Division Bench of said High Court on 27-3-2008. Another case was decided by another Bench of the CEGAT in the case of M/s. Century Rayon Ltd. The Revenue challenged this order in Central Excise Application No. 12 of 2002 which has also been rejected by the Bombay High Court on 7th October, 2008. It is thus clear that two other Courts have decided this issue in favour of the manufacturers. 7. For the reasons given above which finds support from the judgments of the High Courts of Bombay and Rajasthan, we find no merit in the petition which is dismissed. The questions of law are decided against the Revenue and in favour of the Manufacturers. No order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
