TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... WORKS LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., TRICHY [ 2008 (10) TMI 57 - CESTAT CHENNAI] , and the matter was remanded to the High Court of Karnataka for a fresh consideration, we are of the view that the Tribunal should have a fresh look into the matter taking note of the legal position as laid down in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE-II VERSUS M/S SOLECTRON CENTUM ELECTRONICS LTD. [ 2014 (10) TMI 596 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] Division Bench of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE, THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S. VELVETTE INTERNATIONAL PHARMA PRODUCTS LTD., (HERBAL DIVISION) , M/S. HCL INFOSYSTEMS LIMITED, UNIT III [ 2018 (8) TMI 1506 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] , remanded a similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied to 100% EOUs under Notification 1/95? and (iii) Whether the Tribunal comprising of two Members is right in proceeding with deciding the case against the assessee/appellant when the same issue has already been referred to the Larger Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Eicher Tractors v. CCE [reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. 67] and wherein one of the Members, who passed the impugned order, was also sitting along with another member? 3. The questions involved in these cases are as to whether the assessee was eligible to clear the inputs, in respect of which, MODVAT credit had been availed without payment of duty against a CT-3 certificate issued by a 100% export oriented unit (EOU) and as to whether the duty, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit that had been allowed in respect of the inputs under Rule 57A of the Rules. The Tribunal agreed that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. [reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 228 (Tri.-LB)] was applicable for the period before the amendment of Rule 57AB of the Rules i.e. 28-2-2001. 6. It was further held that after 57AB of the Rules had undergone a change and in the light of Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 (for short, the 2001 Rules), which contained a provision different from the provisions of Rule 57F(1) of the Rules, when there being a change in the rule position, the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Asia Brown Boveri Ltd., would not be ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out by the High Court of Karnataka. 11. Mr. A.P. Srinivas, Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue sought to sustain the impugned common order by referring to the 2001 Rules and by contending that in the absence of compliance of the said condition contained therein, the assessee is bound to pay duty. It is further submitted that the interpretation of an Exemption Notification should be strict and that the interpretation should lean in favour of the Revenue. It is further pointed out by the Learned Senior Standing Counsel that the Exemption Notification, which was the subject matter of issue before the Tribunal, was Notification No. 1/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995 whereas the Notification, which was the subject matter of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee is entitled to the said benefit only if the user industry brings excisable goods directly from the factory of manufacture or warehouse. In the instant case, when it removed goods to EHTP unit, it was not bringing excisable goods directly from the factory of manufacture or warehouse and therefore they are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 22/2003. This is not a case where the assessee was purchasing those goods for its EHTP unit for the first time. It purchased the capital goods as well as inputs for its DTA unit. Therefore, duty was paid. Thereafter, with the permission of the authorities as reflected in CT-3, the inputs were removed from DTA unit to the EHTP unit. Similarly, the capital goods purchased for DTA u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 16. In the light of the decision in the case of Solectron Centum Electronics Ltd., we are of the considered view that the matters require reconsideration by the Tribunal. Though it may be true that the decision was not available when the Tribunal decided and passed the impugned common order, nevertheless, when the matter travelled upto the Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd., and the matter was remanded to the High Court of Karnataka for a fresh consideration, we are of the view that the Tribunal should have a fresh look into the matter taking note of the legal position as laid down in the case of Solectron Centum Electronics Ltd. 17. We are informe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
