TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitation contained in Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would not apply - Held that:- Following decision of Navin Chemicals Mfg. & Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in [1993 (9) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Appeal No. 381 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 22-1-2014 - Akil Kureshi and Sonia Gokani, JJ. Shri Y.N. Ravani, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri P.K. Sahu with Nitin K. Mehta, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of CESTAT dated 12-6-2012 [2013 (287) E.L.T. 467 (Tribunal)]. The case of the department is that the respondent-manufacturer had received capital goods in the nature of machinery which were utilised for man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r.) (2) Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore v. Switchgear Control Technics P. Ltd. reported in 2011 (269) E.L.T. 496 (Kar.) (3) Commissioner of C. Ex., Mysore v. Jaladarshini Pipes Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011 (271) E.L.T. 30 (Kar.) = 2012 (26) S.T.R. 594 (Kar.) (4) Commissioner of C. Ex., Mangalore v. Rajashri Packagers Ltd. reported in 2011 (268) E.L.T. 337 (Kar.) 4. On the other hand learned counsel Shri Ravani for the department insisted that appeal is maintainable. He submitted that the appeal does not involve any question of duty or any other question which in terms of Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, cannot be entertained by this Court. Section 35L of the Central Excise Act reads as under : 35 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment, are excluded from purview of the High Court. 6. Short question therefore, is does this appeal involve any such question. We have briefly referred to the controversy between the parties in order to ascertain this. We have noticed that dispute between the department and the manufacturer is confined to the question whether in terms of Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the respondent could have availed the Cenvat credit on the capital goods. As per the department since the capital goods were used for manufacture of duty exempt product. Rule 6(4) would preclude the respondent from claiming any such Cenvat credit. The respondent contends that Ammonia was not the sole product manufactured by the respondent which was used for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment; to the classification of goods under the Tariff and whether or not they are covered by an exemption notification; and whether the value of goods for purposes/of assessment should be enhanced or reduced having regard to certain matters that the said Act provides for. Although this Explanation expressly confines the definition of the said expression to sub-section (5) of Section 129D, it is proper that the said expression used in the other parts of the said Act should be interpreted similarly. The statutory definition accords with the meaning we have, given to the said expression above. Questions relating to the rate of duty and to the value of goods for purposes of assessment are questions that squarely fall within the meaning of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
