TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue involved in the present appeal has already been gone into by Hon'ble Supreme Court and judgments of Bombay High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Sharp Menthol India Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Drish Shoes Ltd. [2010 (5) TMI 334 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT], have been upheld granting relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004, as the respondent is clearing one of their products i.e. 100% cotton item under 'nil' rate of duty? (ii) Whether the respondent has violated the provisions of Rule 3 and Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004? (iii) Whether the Cenvat Credit wrongly availed by the respondent is liable to be disallowed and recovered from them under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... airly did not dispute the fact that against the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Drish Shoes Ltd's Case (supra), the State preferred appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on July 12,2016, by passing the following order: ''We find that the issue raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
