TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stantial questions has been considered in the earlier decisions rendered by the Hon'ble High Courts. It appears that the earliest of the decision was in the case of REPRO INDIA LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2007 (12) TMI 209 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]. This decision was relied on by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS DRISH SHOES LTD. [ 2010 (5) TMI 334 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT ]. The substantial questions of law which were framed for consideration in the said decision were identical to that of the substantial questions of law which have been framed in this appeal though the language adopted may be slightly different. The Court after elaborately considering the scheme of the CCR, taking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. The idea of Rule 5 was also clearly set out by stating that it is to avoid export of duty/taxes. There is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal - the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1303 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2021 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N. MANJULA For Appellant : Mr. V. Sundareswaran Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr. Joseph Prabakar JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J ) This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Tax, 1944 [hereinafter referred to as CST Act ] is directed against the order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pply [water supply] and in respect of import of service availed prior to 01.03.2006 for which claim was made in November 2006. The original authority opined that the first four category of services as mentioned above are not eligible input services since there is no corresponding output service that arises out of those input services. With regard to the fifth category of service, the output service having been exempted during the period from 01.03.2006 in terms of notification No.8/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003, claim having been made in November 2006 is not sustainable. 4. The assessee being aggrieved by the order-in-original dated 15.12.2008 filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise [Appeals], Chennai [hereinafter referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .06.2003 and the relevant provision of the CCR and sought to draw a distinction by comparing Rule 5 with that of Rule 6 of CCR and the statutory Form A prescribed under Rule which is the application for refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. Based on the above, it is submitted that the Tribunal erroneously rejected the revenue's appeal. 6. Mr. Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel for the respondent sought to sustain the order passed by the Tribunal by pointing out that the Tribunal rightly took note of the distinction brought out in the language adopted in Rule 5 and Rul6 of the CCR and the Tribunal also took note of the earlier decisions of the other Hon'ble High Courts and rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. [2011 (270) ELT 212 (Bom)], wherein the Hon'ble Court referred to the decision in Repro India Limited and held that the assessee therein was entitled for refund. In the said decision, elaborate discussion has been made with regard to the scheme of the Rules and the distinction which has to be drawn between Rule 5 and Rule 6 of the CCR. The decision in Sharp Menthol India Limited was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Sharp Menthol India Limited [2015) 320 ELT A104(SC)]. 10. In yet another decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Cus., Aurangabad vs. Jolly Board Ltd. [2017 (50) STR 131 (Bom)], identical issue was considered and the Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
