9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Jayaraman : This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original No 02/2005 dated 24.03.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore. 2. The facts of the case are as follows. With effect from 09.07.2004, Tractors were exempted from payment of duty. As on 08.07.2004, the appellant had a closing stock of finished goods, namely; tractors of 319 numbers, which were m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, 2002. The appellants are aggrieved over the impugned order of the-Commissioner. Hence, they have approached this Tribunal for relief. 4. Mr. Rajesh Chander Kumar, the —learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Mr. Ganesh Havanur, the learned SDR appeared for Revenue. 5. The learned Advocate adduced the following arguments. (a) Once the credit is validly taken, then the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority failed to appreciate that only such decisions of the Supreme Court were binding, which declared law. For a declaration of law under article 141 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, a speaking order is necessary as held in the case of S. Shanmugavel Nadar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu . (f) The adjudicating authority erred in applying the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Albert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no provision in law to reverse to the credit when it was taken legally. This is very clear from the decision of the Apex Court in Dai lchi case -1999 (33) RLT 899 (SC)=1999 (112) ELT 353 (SC). Moreover, the Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot Vs. Ashok Iron Steel Fabricators - 2002 (48) RLT 789 (CEGAT -LB)=2002 (140) ELT 277 has held that credit need not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
