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

2024 (9) TMI 314

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... URN STANDARD CO., LIMITED [ 2013 (2) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and the factual matrix upon which those questions have been posited, is identical. In this case as well, the Revenue has not disputed the fact that proper reversal of credit was attributable to the DBM and hence, the question of a further demand does not really arise. Thus, there is no necessity for any further enquiry. As the order of this Court in above case, is stated to have attained finality, applying the ratio of the same, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and order of the CESTAT dated 20.03.2012 is confirmed - petition dismissed. - Honourable Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth And Honourable Mr. Justice G.Arul Murugan For the Appellant : M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... According to the respondent/assessee, the remand is itself unwarranted as it has not taken note of the detailed basis on which the assessee's reversal has been found to be correct, by the lower authorities. 4. In fact, identical questions had been considered by this Court in the assessee's own case for the period from April, 2008 to December, 2008, in a decision reported as Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem V. Burn Standard Co. Limited (295 ELT 671). 5. Compared with the questions as admitted in the present appeal, (extracted in paragraph 1), the scope of the appeal for the prior period is far wider as may be seen from the substantial questions decided therein, extracted below: '(i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the period from April 2008 to December 2008 (Rs. 1,63,40,443) being 10% of the total price of exempted exercisable goods cleared with consequential interest and penalty thereof. (vi) Whether the Appellate Tribunal committed an apparent error of jurisdiction in not appreciating the facts of the case and provision of law in setting aside the Order-in-Original No. 1 of 2010 dated 29.1.2010 and remanding the case back to the adjudicating authority for adjudication afresh?' 6. The difference of opinion, as to whether the methodology for reversal of credit relatable to Dead Burnt Magnesite (DBM), an exempt product, has been carried out correctly by the respondent, remains identical in both the appeals. 7. In that case as well, separate acco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in respect of any inputs or input services and manufacturing final products which are chargeable to duty and also other final products which are exempted goods, may pay an amount equivalent to CENVAT credit attributable to the inputs or input services used in, or in relation to the manufacture of, exempted goods before or after the clearance of such goods: Provided that the manufacturer shall pay interest at the rate of twenty-four per cent, per annum from the due date till the date of payment of the said amount. Explanation.-- For the purpose of this sub-rule, due date means the 5th day of the month following the month in which goods have been cleared from the factory. 10th day of September 2004 to the 31st day of March 2008 (both days inc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d to show that the qualifying procedure and conditions specified under Sub Rule (3A) for payment of amount under clause (ii) of sub Rule (3) of Rule 6 had been followed by the assessee during the material period. He further pointed out that as per the Explanation to Sub Rule (3A) to Rule 6, the manufacturer should have availed of any of the options, failing which, the question of considering the claim even as per Sub Rule (3A) of Rule 6 does not arise. 15. We do not find any justification in accepting the plea of the Revenue. Considering the submission made by the Department's Representative before the Tribunal in the absence of a question raised before the Tribunal as regards the non-compliance of the option granted under the Explanati .....

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