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

2022 (6) TMI 1486

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of this Tribunal in SHALIMAR PAINTS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA [ 2000 (5) TMI 141 - CEGAT, KOLKATA] , as upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court in COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS RAJASTHAN STATE CHEMICAL WORKS [ 1991 (9) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT] , would be binding on both sides. Since the Department in its appeal has not made any submission to distinguish the decision of this Tribunal, on facts, we are bound by the earlier decision of this Tribunal, especially when the appeal of the department was rejected by the Supreme Court. Therefore, without going into the submissions of the Department in its appeal, it is held that since the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the facts of the earlier cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h shall have a direct bearing on the present case. It has been submitted by the respondent that since they were claiming benefit of said notification since long, the Department issued show cause notice dated 13.03.1992 proposing denial of exemption under Notification No.230/86, which was adjudicated upon by the Commissioner, Central Excise Kolkata vide order-in-original dated 26.05.2000 confirming denial of benefit of exemption. The respondent herein challenged the said order before this Tribunal which vide its order reported in 2001 (136) ELT 451 (Tri.-Kol) held that the assessee was entitled for exemption. The appeal filed by the Department against the said order of the Tribunal has been dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court as reported .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... same, the lower authority has discussed merits of the case which otherwise was not required as once the case for earlier period was settled in favor of respondent, the benefit could not be denied for subsequent period. 3. The department has filed the present appeal against the order of the Commissioner whereby benefit of exemption has been granted to the respondent primarily on the basis that there was nothing to dislodge the department s basic position that electrically operated pumps were used to handle/transfer/lift raw material before being used in the manufacturing process. Department has heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs. Rajasthan State Chemical reported in (supra) and Waxpol Industr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... basis to deny the exemption benefit, whereas the said decision has already been distinguished by this Tribunal in the respondent s own case for the earlier period. As regard the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Chemical Works, it is contended by the respondent that the said judgment has been followed in favor of the respondent herein by this Tribunal in their own case for the earlier period and even by the Commissioner while dropping the demand. Apart from the above, it is contended that part of the demand is otherwise time barred as the show cause notice dated 7.10.93 was issued for the period from December 1991 to August 1993 whereas during the said period, the normal period for raising demand was six months and hen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed in the present case being similar to earlier case, the decision of this Tribunal, as upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court, would be binding on both sides. Since the Department in its appeal has not made any submission to distinguish the decision of this Tribunal, on facts, we are bound by the earlier decision of this Tribunal, especially when the appeal of the department was rejected by the Supreme Court. Therefore, without going into the submissions of the Department in its appeal, we hold that since the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the facts of the earlier case, the earlier decision given by the Tribunal (supra) is required to be followed. We also take note of the submissions of the appellant that the decis .....

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