9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enging the Order-in-Appeal No. 142/2002 (M-II) dated 21-10-2002 by which the Cenvat credit on capital goods namely Checking Fixtures and Jigs & Fixtures have been denied solely on the ground that the ownership of the said items does not lie in the hands of the appellants but it was owned by M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. It is a fact which is noted by the authorities that M/s. Hyundai Motors had r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner has sent a report wherein he has noted that the department is proceeding to file an RCP against the judgment rendered in the case of Sharda Motors Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai-II (supra). It is also stated in the reply that this judgment needs to be declared 'per incuriam'. It is stated that the Board's circular is not applicable. However, no explanation has been given as to how it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the records and have also gone through the reply filed by the Jt. Commissioner. He has stated that the Sharda Motor Industries Ltd. case is under consideration for filing RCP. It is seen that the above cited case was decided by the Tribunal on 26-3-2002. It is not explained as to how an RCP will arise after the period of limitation is over. Be that as it may, the order of the Tribunal is binding o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ask the Tribunal also to declare its own order as 'per incuriam'. In that view of the matter, such a prayer is rejected. The impugned order is not correct in terms of law and, therefore, respectfully following the cited judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Sharda Motors Industries Ltd. (supra), the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
