9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Central Excise, Bangalore. 2. The facts of the case are as follows. With effect from 09.07.2004, Tractors were exempted from payment of duty. As on 08.07.2004, the appellant had a closing stock of finished goods, namely; tractors of 319 numbers, which were manufactured using the inputs on which credit of duty was availed. On the same day, the appellant also had a closing stock of inp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lief. 4. Mr. Rajesh Chander Kumar, the —learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Mr. Ganesh Havanur, the learned SDR appeared for Revenue. 5. The learned Advocate adduced the following arguments. (a) Once the credit is validly taken, then the benefit is available to the manufacturer without any limitation in time. (b) The above principle was enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cle 141 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, a speaking order is necessary as held in the case of S. Shanmugavel Nadar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. (f) The adjudicating authority erred in applying the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Albert David and Explicit Trading & Marketing (P) Ltd. The said decision was per incuriurn and theTribunal had failed to apply the decision of the Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 (SC)=1999 (112) ELT 353 (SC). Moreover, the Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot Vs. Ashok Iron & Steel Fabricators - 2002 (48) RLT 789 (CEGAT -LB)=2002 (140) ELT 277 has held that credit need not be reversed when subsequently final product is exempted from duty; credit having been taken validly and its benefit being available to manufacturer without any limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
