9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent appeal as to whether the respondent was required to reverse the Cenvat credit involved in the inputs lying in stock as well as contained in finished goods/semi-finished goods lying in stock as on 9-9-2004, the date when the respondent opted for exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003. The appellate authority by following the decision of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Saboo Alloys P. Ltd. reported in 2010 (249) E.L.T. 519 (H.P.) has allowed the appeal of the respondent. For better appreciation, I reproduce the relevant para from the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) :- "10. My view is further fortified by the decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of CCE, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 0519 (H.P.) over the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ranbaxy Lab. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh reported as 2010 (253) E.L.T. 578 (Tri.-Del.) due to the reasons :- (i) the party's appeal before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, is still pending; (ii) Tribunal's decision in the Ranbaxy case has been declared subsequent to decision of the High Court and the case of Saboo Alloys has been referred by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its order; (iii) High Court's decision in the case of M/s. Saboo Alloys has been accepted by the dept. not on merits but because of low amount involved therein." 4. I find no merits in the above contention of Revenue. Admitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which are considered herein. I am of the considered view that Tribunal cannot find faults in the judgments of High Courts and if the issue involved is same, the declaration of law by the Hon'ble High Court is required to be followed. 6. Apart from above, I note that the issue also stands decided by Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of HMT reported as 2008 (89) RLT 558 = 2008 (232) E.L.T. 217 (Tri.-LB.). The said decision of the Larger Bench was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Apco Pharma Ltd. as reported In 2009 (93) RLT 639 = 2009 (248) E.L.T. 896 (Tri.) and it was held that input credit legally taken and utilised on dutiable final product, need not be reversed on the final product becoming exempt under Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
