9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id stand of the department was later supported by this decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of BALMER LAWRIE CO. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., KANPUR [ 2000 (1) TMI 74 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] . But the said decision of the Tribunal was distinguished by the Hon ble High Court in the matter of MARMAGOA STEEL LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2005 (4) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY] by holding that Rule 57G ibid does not require that the bill of entry should be in the name of the person claiming credit of duty and what is required to be established for taking credit is that the goods used as inputs are duty paid and the credit of duty paid on the said goods has not been taken. The said view of the Hon ble Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been filed from the impugned Order dated 11.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals Thane), GST Central Excise, Mumbai rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The period in issue is 1995-96. This case has a chequered history So many times it has been remanded either by the Hon ble High Court or by this Tribunal or by the Commissioner (Appeals). The facts leading to the filing of the appeal are stated in brief as follows. The appellant are engaged in manufacturing of P P medicines. At the relevant point of time they are engaged in manufacture of anti-cancer drugs on behalf of M/s. German Remedies and the name of the said M/s. German Remedies was appearing on the Bills of Entry of the imported raw material/input required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er on this Tribunal vide order dated 6.12.2005 also rejected the 2nd appeal of the appellant citing the same decision i.e. Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd. (supra). The appellant filed appeal before the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay and the Hon ble High Court vide its order dated 8.12.2010 remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to be decided afresh in the light of the decision of the Hon ble High Court in the matter of Marmagoa Steel Ltd. vs. Union of India; 2005 (192) ELT 82 (Bom.) and this Tribunal in turn remanded the matter back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue. The first appellate authority vide impugned order dated 11.06.2018 rejected the appeal of the appellant on the ground that the appellant have fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the credit only on the ground that bills of entry were not in the name of the appellant then it is not open for the Commissioner (Appeal) to go in any other issue as no one can go beyond the show cause notice and the said ground itself is sufficient to set aside the impugned order. While remanding the matter back to the first appellate authority, this Tribunal has specifically recorded that the appellant was stating before the lower authorities that they had received the material/inputs covered under the bills of entry and the said bills of entry had endorsement alongwith dealer s invoice. The said bills of entry alongwith endorsement in their favour, which the appellant placed before the learned commissioner, have also been placed on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
