TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n case of Commissioner of C. Ex. v. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd. [2009 (8) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that exclusion of fuel- input vis-a-vis non-fuel-input would still fall in sub-rule (1) - appeal dismissed. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1217 of 2018 With CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) NO. 1 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 10-10-2018 - MR AKIL KURESHI AND MR B.N. KARIA, JJ. For The Petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6? 3.3 Whether the Recovery of any Penalty is justified in the facts of the present case when the issue was pending consideration before Various Courts already and was an issue of Interpretation? 3.4 Whether the Tribunal was in error in Law not to discuss the Legal Position of Credit availed on Fuel vis a vis Goods cleared under Job work? 3.5 Whether the Tribunal was in err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) by the Supreme Court. 3. Mere reference of the larger bench would not in any manner dilute the force of the judgment of the Supreme Court. This is what the Division Bench of this Court in case of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex. Cus reported in 2014 ( 306) E.L.T. 315 (Guj.) has held and observed. 4. In the result, Tax Appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
