Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2015 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1844 - SUPREME COURTDenial of Abatement claim - Determination of annual capacity of production - Held that:- The abatement of duty under consideration in respect of Stenter of 'SM ECON-2100 make are for the period of closure from 06.11.1999 to 14.11.1999, 10.12.1999 to 18.12.1999 and 11.02.2000 to 19.02.2000 and in respect of Stenter of PRIMATEX for the period of closure from 10.01.2000 to 18.01.2000 wherein the duty payable on the stenters installed in the factory premises has to be paid in advance during the months of November, 1999, to February, 2000, in terms of closure (e) to sub-Rule (7) of the Rule 96ZQ of the Rules. - It is not even necessary to go into this question because of a simple reason. The vires of the aforesaid Rule was challenged before the Madras High Court in Beauty Dyers v. Union of India [2001 (12) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS] and the High Court held the said Rule to be ultravires the erstwhile Section 3A of the Act. Special leave petition was preferred by the Union of India against the said judgment which was dismissed by this Court. The judgment is reported by the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Entex Pvt. Ltd. – [2015 (9) TMI 827 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. - It becomes clear that the respondent was not supposed to pay any duty, more so, when the entire exercise was revenue neutral. It legitimately claimed the rebate. We, thus, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. - Decided against Revenue.
|