9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the above that the Central Board of Excise and Customs has issued Circular No. 600/37/2001-CX on 19.11.2001 accepting the decisions of Moosa Hazi Patrawala P. Ltd. v. CCE (1996 (1) TMI 220 - CEGAT, BOMBAY) which in turn was decided along with Gujarat Medicraft Pvt. Ltd. (2000 (11) TMI 1210 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) In view of this development, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94 by the manufacturers of inputs in terms of Rule 52A and endorsed after 01.04.1994 in favour of the assessee. The Excise authorities asked the manufacturer assessee to show cause why the credit so granted ought not to be reversed; the assessee relied upon the notification, No. 16/1994-CE dated 30.03.1994. The Department?s position was that the change brought about by this notification with effec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise, Ahmedabad-I v. Gujarat Medicraft Pvt. Ltd. 2001 (75) ECC 256; CCE, Commissionerate-I, Chandigarh v. Suraj Udyog 2002 (144) ELT 293 (PandH); Commissioner of Central Excise v. Saras Poly Pack 2008 (232) ELT 418 and Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I v. Moosa Haji Patrawala P. Ltd. 2009 (243) ELT 35 (Bom). In the last of the decisions, - Patrawala (supra) which affirmed the Tribunal? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by following the ratio of judgment. It appears that reference in Krishna Chemicals was decided by the Gujarat High Court along with the reference in case of Gujarat Medicraft Pvt. Ltd. In view of the above authorities and the circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Revenue cannot take a different view. XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX" It is evident from the above that the Central Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
