9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Common Judgment. Since the facts in all the cases are identical, for the sake of convenience, the facts enumerated in C.E.A.No.151 of 2006 are referred to. These appeals filed under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 arising from Common Final Order Nos.2089 to 2100 of 2005, dated 07.12.2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short CESTAT), South Zonal Bench at Bangalore, are at the instance of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirupathi. In all the appeals, the following substantial question of law is raised for adjudication. Whether the Tribunal, Bangalore, is justified in distinguishing the case law of M/s.Albert David Ltd. v. C.C.E., Meerut reported in 2003(151 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07.1991 should not be reversed in RG 23A Part-II or paid in cash as the case may be in terms of Rule 57(I) of Central Excise Rules. b) The credit of duty was taken in respect of quantity of 66,680 numbers of cans. After show cause notices were replied by the assessees and elaborate enquiry was conducted, the Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 21.01.2003, dropped the proceedings holding to the following effect: (i) I confirm and demand proportionate duty of Rs. 6,015/- (Rupees six thousands and fifteen only) involved on 3,493 numbers of unutilized empty cans lying with the assessee. (ii) I drop further proceedings in respect of 66,680 numbers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacturer is disentitled to utilize the MODVAT / CENVAT credit. He has also submitted that the objective behind the whole scheme of CENVAT credit is to reduce the cascading effect of taxation and make the product cheaper to the consumer, as such, the Tribunal committed grievous error in ignoring the order of the Delhi Tribunal and pointed out that SLP against the order of the Tribunal in M/s.Albert David case was dismissed by the Apex Court. On the other hand, Sri S. Arun Kumar and Sri Anandhan Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents have contended that various High Courts have followed the judgment in Ashok Iron case and cited some latest judgments of the High Courts of Himachal Pradesh, Pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort the case of the appellants in any manner. We notice that various High Courts have approved the decision of the Larger Bench in Ashok Iron case: 1) C.C.E vs. Premier Tyres Ltd. 2) TAFE Limited (Tractor Division) vs. C.C.E. 3) Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. C.C.E. 4) C.C.E. vs. CNC Commercial Ltd. 5) C.C.E. vs. Apco Pharma Ltd. 6) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. C.C.E. and 7) C.C.E. vs. Saboo Alloys Pvt. Ltd. In the above view of the matter, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
