9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the issue stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of the respondent itself for the subsequent period, there is no informity in the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal dismissed - decided agaist Revenue. - Excise Appeal No.70700 of 2019 WITH Excise Cross Application No.70014 of 2020 - MISCELLANEOUS ORDER NO. 70071/2022 and FINAL ORDER NO. 70130/2022 - Dated:- 3-8-2022 - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Madhukar Anand, Authorised Representative for the Appellant Shri S. C. Kamra, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER The department has filed this appeal against the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, Post Office- Maukhas, Garh Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, is allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that for the subsequent period, the Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 17.01.2019 also set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and allowed the appeal and against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Excise Appeal was filed before the Tribunal, being Excise Appeal No.70170/2019. This appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 27.06.2019 after relying upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Gularia Chinni Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India [ 2014 (34) S.T.R. 175 (All.) ] and the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd [ 2015 (322) E.L.T. 769 (SC.) ]. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad not reversed the CENVAT credit as per Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). A Show issued to the appellant for cause notice dated 18.04.2018(SCN), was issued to the appellant for recovering/demanding and appropriating the amount along with interest and proposed imposition of penalty (period April, 2016 to June, 2017). The adjudicating authority vide impugned order confirmed the demand and appropriated the amount deposited and imposed penalty. 7. The Commissioner (Appeals), after analysing the factual position and the provisions of law, allowed the appeal and the appeal filed by the department before the Tribunal was dismissed by the order dated 27.06.2019. 8. The fact as to whether the issue in the present appeal is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 98/- under Rule 14 of CCR read with Section 11A (5) of Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA). The adjudicating authority vide impugned order dropped the demand for the period prior to 01.03.2015 stating that the dispute had been put to rest by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Gularia Chini Mills Versus Union of India [2014 (34) STR 175 (All)] in which it was held that electrical energy is not an excisable goods nor it is exempted goods as defined in Rule 2(d) of the 2004 . Further, the above judgement had been upheld by the Apex Court in case of Union of India Versus DSCL Sugar Limited Others [2015 (322) ELT-769 (SC)] in which it was held that Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rule was not applicable in the case of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
