TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tribunal has taken a very realistic and plausible view of the matter. We affirm the said impugned order of the tribunal dated 23rd March, 2007, answer all the questions framed by the Court in favour of the respondent assessee and against the revenue and dismiss the appeal. - GA 3237 OF 2007 WITH CEXA 19 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2019 - MR I. P. MUKERJI AND MR MD. NIZAMUDDIN, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. K. K. Maity, Adv. And Mr. B. P. Banerjee, Adv For The Respondent : Mr. V. Sridharan, Adv., Mr. Ravi Raghavan, Adv., Mr. Rahul Tangri, Adv., Mr. Rishi Raju, Adv., Mr. Deepro Sen, Adv. And Mr. Harsh Shukla, Adv. ORDER The Court : This is an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any final product which is chargeable to duty as well as in any other [final product which is exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable there on or is chargeable to nil rate of duty] and the manufacturer takes credit of the specified duty on any inputs (other than inputs used as fuel) which is used or ordinarily used in or in relation to the manufacture of both the aforesaid categories of final products, whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the said final products or not, the manufacturer shall, unless the provisions of sub-rule (9) are complied with, pay an amount equal to eight per cent. of the price (excluding sales tax other taxes, if any, payable on such goods) of the second category of final products ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on the whole product. But this case is entirely different, as discussed above. The above finding of fact that the input used is only minimal is not controverted. At this stage, when we are hearing the appeal on a substantial question of law, we are not minded to reopen that finding of fact, no matter how compelling may be the argument of Mr. Maity. It is also beyond controversy that the said input has been treated as a separate final product and the duty thereon has been paid adjusting the duty paid as input. In our opinion, this dispels any charge against the respondent that they were wrongfully availing of any credit of duty. For the above reasons, we are of the firm opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
