Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 4 - CESTAT AHMEDABADReversal of proportionate credit attributed to exempted goods - whether the assessee is required to pay 10% in terms of Rule 6(3)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, prevailing at the relevant period January 2006 to March 2006? - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the Adjudicating Authority has taken congnizance of the Tribunal’s remand order which recorded that the issue stand decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of NICHOLAS PIRAMEL (I) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-I [2008 (8) TMI 97 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. However, the learned Commissioner also observed that controversy involved was the similar to the controversy in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD-II VERSUS MAIZE PRODUCTS [2008 (8) TMI 365 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD] wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has dismissed the department’s appeal. Subsequently, the High Court order COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD-II VERSUS ANIL PRODUCTS LTD. [2010 (7) TMI 444 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] in the case of Maize Products was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in COMMR. OF CEN. EXC. -II, AHMEDABAD VERSUS M/S. MAIZE PRODUCTS [2009 (11) TMI 1024 - SC ORDER] dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. The ruling laid-down in the case of M.s, Maize Products will be prevalent over the judgment of M/s Nicholas Piramal (I) Limited passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Moreover, this Tribunal being under the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, judgment of M/s. Maize Products is more relevant and binding than any other judgment - there are no infirmity in the order of learned Commissioner - appeal of Revenue dismissed.
|