2009 (1) TMI 135

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot under challenge so there is no occasion of denial of credit
M.M. Kumar and H.S. Bhalla, JJ. Shri Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the Appellant. S/Shri M.P. Devnath, with Sandeep Goyal, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per : H.S. Bhalla, J.]. - The revenue has knocked at the door of this court by invoking Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, 'the Act'), challenging the judgment dated 19-12-2003 (P-2) and order dated 9-2-2004 (P-3) passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'). It has claimed that the following substantial questions of law would arise for determination of this court :- "(i) Whether a manufacturing unit, providing capital goods to a buyer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order dated 19-12-2003 (P-2) passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has further assiduously argued that the Tribunal fell in error by holding that loan granted by M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as 'MUL') to the respondent for Item No. 1 involving the Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 23,21,193/- does not fall within the ambit of Rule 57R(3)(ii)(b) of the Rules. Learned counsel has further argued that the respondent did not fulfil the conditions laid down in sub-rule (3)(ii)(a) of the Rules wherein the credit could be availed on the capital goods procured against the agreement made for the cost of capital goods excluding the specified duty. Learned counsel further pointed out that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion relating to this Invoice was with MUL and it is also an admitted position before us that MUL is not a finance company, learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to produce any material on the record on the basis of which it could be ascertained that MUL is a finance company. In such like circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that provisions contained in sub rule (3)(ii)(b) of Rule 57 of the Rules are not attracted to the transaction. A finding in this regard has rightly been recorded by the Tribunal while passing order dated 19-12-2003. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has rightly pointed out that all the goods in question have been received under Invoice E-1128 dated 1-6-1999 and the receipt of the go .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X