9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Revenue did not raise any issue with regard to demand being barred by limitation. Thus, that issue stands concluded in favour of the respondent even as per the Revenue. So far as other questions which are now being raised are the same which were subject of consideration by the coordinate Bench of this Court at the time of admission. At that time, the appeals were admitted only on one issue by reframing the question of law as reproduced hereinabove. Thus, our entertaining/examining the question for consideration would amount to review of the order dated 18th September 2009 admitting the appeals. This, without any reasons being even suggested by the Revenue, which would warrant the questions being reurged at the time of final hearing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are invokable only when any statute is 'amended', 'repealed', 'superseded' or 'rescinded' and will not apply to cases of 'substitution' of provisions of statues, is correct. 2. Whether, having regards to the facts of the case, the MODVAT Credit availed by the receiver cannot be altered by following the route of Rules 57I( 1)(ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rule, 1944 and that the same should have been covered under Rule 57E (ibid) especially when Rule 57E deals with the adjustment of credit subsequent of availment by the receiver of inputs. 3. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in holding that the condition stipulated in Notfn. No.58/97 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus, even if the above substantial question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue, it would have no impact on the other issues on which the respondents' appeals were allowed. It was further pointed out to us that the respondents had filed an affidavit on 21st September 2010 wherein it has been specifically stated that even if the substantial question of law is decided in favour of the appellant-Revenue, the impugned order of the Tribunal allowing the respondents' appeals will survive as all issues, including issue of limitation have been decided in favour of the respondents. In spite of the above, the Revenue did not proceed to frame any other questions of law. This only because the Revenue is not aggrieved by the other parts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which would warrant the questions being reurged at the time of final hearing of these appeals. Therefore, we see no reason to exercise our power under the proviso to section 35G (4) of the said Act in the present facts. Therefore, the other issues on which the Tribunal has decided the appeals in favour of the respondents would remain untouched even if we answer the admitted substantial question of law in favour of the appellant-Revenue. Thus, the substantial question of law as framed in these appeals in the present facts is academic. 8. In the above view of the matter, the substantial question of law is not being answered by us as in the facts of this case. The entire exercise of answering the said question would be academic. 9. Needl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
