9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the Revenue, was admitted on the following substantial question of law : 1. Whether the decision of the CESTAT which set aside the order No. 26/2006, dated 30-7-2006 of Commissioner, relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. UOI , which was based on the erstwhile Rule 49(e) and the text of sub-rule (4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facturers of M.S. Ingots, defaulted in payment of the monthly instalments of duty. Hence, the assessee was directed to pay all the dues on or before 15-7-2005, failing which the assessee would not be allowed the benefit of Cenvat credit in terms of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as amended, on the ground that the assessee did not follow sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Cenv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 2005 (183) E.L.T. 351 (Bom.). Being aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal. 4. We heard Mr. T. Chandrasekaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the appellant. Though the first respondent has been served and the name is printed, none appeared. 5. In our opinion, the CESTAT has grossly erred in placing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that rule, the assessee is not entitled to utilisation of the subsequently accrued Cenvat credit for the payment of earlier months default. Admittedly, the assessee has made such a claim. As the issue is covered under the provisions of Rule 8(3A) for the non-compliance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the application of the judgment of the Bombay High Court is totally misconc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
