9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside. The appellant, therefore, had no right to challenge the concurrent finding of facts in this appeal - No case is made out for interference with the judgments and orders passed by both the Authorities - The appeal is dismissed in favour of Assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 2 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 18-2-2013 - V.M. Kanade and U.V. Bakre, JJ For the Appellant Susan Linhares, Central Govt. Standing Counsel. For the Respondent M.S. Sonak. JUDGEMENT:- V.M. Kanade, J:- 1. The Revenue/appellant is challenging the judgment and order passed by the CESTAT dated 2nd June, 2005, by which it was pleased to confirm the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 26th April, 2000, who, in turn, had set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Modvat) dated 20th December, 1999. 2. The brief facts are as under:- Respondent No.1 manufactured parts and accessories of motor vehicles and they had been availing Modvat/Cenvat facilities under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Respondent No.1 had filed a declaration for availing Modvat credit of duty paid on capital goods as required under Rule 57-T(1), declaring that the said goods shall not be us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esulted in miscarriage of justice" 5. We have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has invited our attention to the impugned orders passed by the CESTAT, the Commissioner (Appeals) and also the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. It was submitted that both the lower authorities had erred in relying on the Judgment in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd.. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, reported in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 122 (Tribunal). It was submitted that in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd., (supra) the inputs utilized in manufacture of components and the final product was produced in another factory. In the said case, both the units belonged to Bajaj Tempo Ltd. However, in the present case, it was submitted that respondent No. 1 did not merge with respondent No.2. Our attention was drawn to the finding recorded by the Assistant Commissioner who, after going through the agreement, had held that the agreement stated that the Modvat account lying in the excise account of Rudra Industries shall be responsible for all its liabilities on its own aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed by the CESTAT and, as such, it was not open for the appellant to urge this Court to set aside the concurrent findings of facts. It was submitted that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore (supra) upon which reliance was placed, was entirely under different set of facts and, therefore, the ratio of the said judgment was not applicable to the facts of the present case. He, therefore, urged that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard both the Counsel at length. In our view, the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted. The appeal was admitted on two substantial questions of law which were framed at the time of admission of the appeal. Much emphasis, however, were not laid on the said two substantial questions of law which were framed by this Court. On the other hand, what was sought to be argued was firstly that the CESTAT, as also the Assistant Commissioner, erred in relying on the judgment in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd., (supra). It was urged that in the said case, both the units belonged to Bajaj Tempo Ltd., whereas in the present case, there was materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) has recorded the following finding of fact in his order dated 26th April, 2000. Paras 7 and 8 thereof read as under:- " 7. I have carefully gone through the facts of the case, findings given in the impugned order and the law on the subject. I find that the ratio laid down by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune reported at 1994 (69) ELT 122 is squarely applicable to the present situation of the appellant. Since Notification No. 214/85-CE is a notification with an objective similar to that of notification No.217/86-CE and rule 57C considered by the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision is in pari materia with rule 57R involved in the present case. 8. I find that decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd., case was followed in the case of National Aluminium Co. Ltd., vs CCE reported at 1997(22) RLT 165 = wherein it was held that the purpose of the Notification No.217/86 is to avoid scriptory work when the wholly exempted intermediate products are used in the manufacture of dutiable final products and hence rule 57C is not applicable in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
