9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dhakar, J.]. - Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee/appellant insofar as duty demand is concerned, the appellant/assessee is before this Court by filing the present appeal. This Court, vide order dated 13-3-2006 [2006 (200) E.L.T. 158 (Tri. Chen.)], while admitting the appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002. The Department issued a show cause notice for recovery of the 50% of the credit amount of Rs. 1,34,126/- as wrongly taken on the allegation that the moulds and dies were apparently worn out and not in possession of the appellant in April, 2001. After adjudication, the original authority held that the assessee was found not to have fulfilled the condition of possession and use laid down in Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord. 5. From a careful perusal of the entire gamut of facts, it is clear that the Tribunal, on facts, came to hold that adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority have rightly denied the availment of balance 50% of the credit, as the capital goods in question were not in the possession of the assessee during the period in dispute, viz., 2001-2002 and, therefore, the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.10 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act) are still in the possession and use of the manufacturer of final products in such subsequent years." 7. On a plain interpretation of the said provision, viz., clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 57AC, it is clear that the capital goods should be in possession and use of the manufacturer of final products in such subsequent years. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
