9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 2(l). The question of law has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ournment was made. The Tribunal declined to accept that request holding that it was its duty to decide the matter as and when it was brought before the Tribunal on the basis of the settled position in law. The case of the Appellant is that since the judgment of the Tribunal which is impugned in these proceedings both the Karnataka and the Gujarat High Courts have placed a construction on the provisions of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as they stood before 1 April 2008 which supports the case of the assessee. 4. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in a judgment dated 23 March 2011 rendered in the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax v. ABB Limited [CEA No. 121 of 2009 together with companion appeals] [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having regard to the fact that a prima facie case has been made out by the assessees, the interference of the Court would be warranted. The Appellant would be entitled to a complete waiver of the amount of duty in addition to the waiver of interest and penalty granted by the Tribunal. There shall be an order accordingly. The question of law is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, it is clarified that the observations contained in this order are confined to determining the question as to whether a case was made out for the grant of a stay of the order which has been appealed against before the Tribunal. The appeal which is pending before the Tribunal shall be disposed of on its own merits. The pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
