9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he law on the issue is well settled by various High Courts - no case for interference is made out - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Projects India Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2016 (341) ELT 603 (Allahabad), (3) Collector v. Dai-Ichi Karkaria Ltd. reported in 1999 (112) ELT 353 (SC), (4) Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1999 (106) ELT 3 (SC), (5) Indsur Global Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2014 (310) ELT 833 (Gujarat), (6) Sandlay Industries v. Union of India reported in 2015 (326) ELT 256 (P&H) and (7) Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association reported in (1992) 3 SCC 1. The learned Appellate Tribunal has held that issue involved before the Tribunal is squarely covered by a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Cadile Health Care v. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 2010 (17) STR 134 (Tribunal Ahmedabad) and held that d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d above, was upheld by A.R. Metallurgicals P. Ltd. v. CESTAT, Chennai 2015 (322) ELT 49 (Madras); Sandley Industries v. Union of India 2015 (326) ELT 256 (P&H) and ATV Projects Ltd. v. Union of India 2016 (341) ELT 603 (Allahabad). 6. On due consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant - Department, so also the fact, which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the Revenue, that the matter has been decided and appeal has been dismissed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I v. Space Telelink Limited reported in 2017 (355) ELT 189 (Delhi) by giving following reasons in paragraphs No.6, 7 and 8, which read, as under: - "6. This Court also notices that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the excise duty on a final product manufactured on the very day that it becomes available. 18. It is, therefore, that in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India [1999(106) ELT 3] this Court said that a credit under the MODVAT scheme was as good as tax paid." 7. The revenue has argued that the Supreme Court has entertained a Special Leave Petition against the judgment of Gujarat and Madras High Courts and furthermore, granted a stay of proceedings and that in these circumstances, the law declared in those judgments are no longer applicable. This submission is fallacious because in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association (1992) 3 SCC 1, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: - "Whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nuary 7, 1991 does not have the effect of reviving the appeal which had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated January 7, 1991 and it cannot be said that after February 21, 1991, the said appeal stood revived and was pending before the Appellate Authority." 8. It is apparent therefore, that an order keeping in abeyance the judgment of a lower Court or authority does not deface the underlying basis of the judgment itself, i.e., its reasoning." 7. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the law on the issue is well settled by various High Courts. No case to interfere with order dated 02.06.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal, as prayed for, is made out, nor any substantial question of law is arising in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
