Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (8) TMI 84

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... menta for the sole Respondent. 2. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as Revenue for short), has challenged the Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CESTAT for short) in Appeal no. E/1385/02 dated 30.03.2004. Respondent, (hereinafter referred to as Assessee for short) is Limited Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is not in dispute that the respondent is engaged in manufacturing tyres of Animal Drawn Vehicles. It is the contention of the assessee/respondent that the Furnace Oil is an input used as a fuel during the manufacturing process of the final product i.e. tyres drawn by animal vehicles. According to respondent, they are entitled for such Modvat cr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment of duty. According to assessee, Furnace Oil is used as a common input in the manufacture of both dutiable as well as non-dutiable ADV i.e. Animal Drawn Vehicles, tyres. Respondent has further stated that they are reversing the Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of ADV tyres. The amount of Modvat reversal towards ADV tyres includes the amount of Modvat credit on Furnace Oil used in the manufacture of ADV tyres also. Thus the amount of reversal includes Furnace Oil also till March 1997. The rate of reversal has been informed by the Department by communication dated 08.03.1995. Reference is made to the change in Rule 57CC from 01.03.1997. It is further stated that reversal details have been submitted with effect from 01.04.19 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1. 6. The Order passed by the learned Joint Commissioner, Customs Central Excise, Panaji, Goa, was challenged by the respondent-assessee before the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Mumbai. It was registered as File No. 34/GOA/2001. After hearing the respondent, this appeal came to be rejected by the learned Commissioner (appeals) by the Order passed on 19.02.2002. In other words, the Order passed by the Joint Commissioner was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals of Central Excise) Mumbai. The rejection of the appeal of the present respondent-assessee by the Commissioner (Appeals) was further carried by the assessee-respondent to the Appellate Tribunal i.e. CESTAT, Mumbai. It was registered as Appeal No. E-1385/02. This appeal, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products whether directly or in directly and whether contained in the final products or not. Sub-rule (5) has been amended with explanation. We have considered the scheme of Rule 57A in its entirety i.e. from sub-rule (1) up till sub rule (6). 9. In our opinion, the learned Appellate Tribunal is justified in interpreting sub-rule (4) of 57A and turning down the finding of the Lower Authorities. 10. The learned Counsel for the revenue fairly referred to some judicial pronouncements. One of them is the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 41 (P H) in the matter of Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi-IV vs. Super Auto (I) Ltd . Learn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... edit by the fuel used by them in manufacture of PET Chips. 13. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties. We have carefully examined the provisions i.e. Rule 57A, 57B and 57C in its entirety. We have taken into account the scope of Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. We do not find perversity in the Order passed by the CESTAT. In our view, the Order passed by the CESTAT, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is just, legal and does not require interference by this Court. We, accordingly, answer the Substantial Questions of Law framed by this Court at the time of admission of the appeal. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal upholding the Order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates