9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt to file W.P. No. 8099/2005, inter alia, contending that Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was ultra vires the provisions of the Central Excise Act. The said petition was, eventually dismissed by this Court on 9-5-2005 as withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the vires of the provisions after the competent authority considered the reply submitted by the petitioner to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Rule 6 by holding that it applies only to inputs used directly in the manufacture of dutiable excisable goods; (c) direct the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to hear the petitioner's appeal against the Order of the Commissioner dated 26-7-2005 restricting the application of Rule 6 to only direct inputs; (d) quash all the proceedings pursuant to the Show Cause notices dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before the Tribunal in an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, any such exercise would be futile in the light of an earlier decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Maa Kamakhya Marbles (P) Ltd. - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 580. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Filterco and Another v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before the Tribunal in any such appeal. The submission of Mr. Vellapali that an exercise in appeal would be futile in the light of the previous decision of the Tribunal has not impressed us. It is true that the Tribunal has in the case refer to by Mr. Vellapali upheld an order determining the liability of the appellant in that case under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules but it is also cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res of the provision on the assumption that the interpretation offered by the petitioner will be rejected does not arise. As observed by this Court while dismissing the earlier writ petition, the question of vires under Rule 6(3)(b) can be raised by the petitioner if the necessity to do so arises. That necessity has not in our opinion arisen so far. 4.This petition accordingly fails and is here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
