TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TMI 662 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs Ingersoll Rand(India) Ltd. [2013 (2) TMI 32 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], the impugned order is unustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief - Appeal No. E/1536/2011 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) Ms. Kamana Srikanth, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.V.Nair, AR for the Respondent ORDER [ Order per Sulekha Beevi, C.S. ] 1 The appellant are aggrieved by the denial of credit on account of the goods written off as obsolete items. 1.1. The appellants are engaged in manufacture and clearances of MFVRLA Batteries and SLI Batteries and hold Central Excise Registration. They ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents by relying on the judgments in CCE. NaviMumbai Vs Hindal Co Industries Ltd. 2011(272) ELT 161( Bom) and CCE Vs Ingersoll Rand(India) Ltd 2014(300) ELT 347 Guj. 3. The learned AR Shri S.V.Nair supported the findings in the impugned order and contended that the demand is sustainable. 4. I have heard both sides and perused the records. The period involved is from 2002-03 to 2006-07. In the order-in-Original, the adjudicating authority has stated the quantity of items written off for the period 31-03-2006 to 31-03-2007(2006-07). It clearly shows that the period involved is prior to the amendment to Rule 3 by which sub rule (5B) and Sub-Rule (5C) was inserted. The amendment by which the assessee is required to reverse the credit in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral causes. A provision has been made in Rule 21 for the remission of duty payable on such goods. 5. The period involved in the present Appeal is prior to the insertion of sub-rule (5B) and (5C) in Rule 3. 6. In Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited, 2008(226) E.L.T. 339 a division Bench of this Court had noted that the Tribunal in a long line of judgments had taken the view that where the goods have been shown as written off goods, the benefit is available. In the present case, as already noted earlier, the period to which the dispute relates is prior to the insertion of sub-rules(5B) and (5C) in rule 3. The Tribunal held that the case of the assessee was covered by several of its Judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
