TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit on capital goods were not allowed - A straight forward reading of the Notifications 33/1997 and 34/1997-C.E. (N.T.) both dated 1-8-1997 and application of the same would result in the Cenvat credit available in the capital goods account of the respondent on 31-7-1997 to lapse. We also note this Tribunal is a creation of the statute and its mandate is to decide disputes arising in the implementation of the statute within its purview. This Tribunal cannot arrogate to itself any of the extraordinary powers bestowed upon the Hon’ble High Courts and the Supreme Court by the Constitution - Appeal allowed - decided against the assessee. - E/1549/2007 - Final Order No. A/52239/2016-EX(DB) - Dated:- 28-6-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmissions, we remit the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner with the directions to pass the fresh order regarding the excise duty liability in the light of directions given by their lordship in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. Ors. v. Union of India Ors. - (1992) 2 SCC 361 . 4. The Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 10-5-2006, passed in compliance of the Hon ble High Court s directions, allowed the credit of ₹ 20 lakhs in the respondent s capital goods account. This order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing the credit lying unutilized on 31-7-1997 by incorrectly applying the ratio of the Hon ble Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, any contrary view would go against the directions of the Hon ble High Court. 6. The facts are not in dispute. The respondent had credit to the tune of ₹ 20 lakhs in their capital goods account under Rule 57Q which would lapse in terms of the Notifications 33/1997 and 34/1997-C.E. (N.T.) both dated 1-8-1997. We have perused the order dated 7-7-2005 passed by the Hon ble High Court at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1713/1998. The operative part of which is reproduced below :- Considering the submissions, we remit the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner with the direction to pass a fresh order regarding excise duty liability in the light of the direction given by their lordships in the case of Eicher Motors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted . 9. When we come to the facts of the present case, we find that the facts are totally different. The Eicher Motors case does not deal with the validity of the notifications, in question, in the present case. In the Eicher Motors case the inputs on which credit was taken were already used in the manufacture of final products before amendment, whereas in this case the capital goods on which Modvat credit was taken were available in the factory on the date of the amendment. After the amendment, the capital goods were to be used in the manufacture of final products for which the duty was to be paid as per the provisions of Section 3A for which Cenvat credit on capital goods were not allowed. We also observe that the Apex Court in the Ei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
