TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statute - HELD THAT:- The appellant is permitted to withdraw this Appeal, as they have availed the benefit of the Settlement Scheme. The Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn and the substantial questions of law are left open. - C.M.A. No.1591 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2021 - Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam And Honourable Mr.Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup For the Appellant : Mrs. P. Jayalakshmi for Mr. S. Muthuvenkataraman For the Respondents : Mr. A.P. Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. This Appeal filed by the Assessee under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1994 ('the Act' for brevity) is directed against the order dated 13.07.2007 in Appeal No.198 of 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F) Whether the Tribunal went wrong in construing the expression 'clearance' as every activity anterior to transportation and in holding transportation as posterior activity of clearance ignoring the expression 'from the place of removal'. G) Whether the Tribunal went wrong in giving too narrow a construction to the expression 'clearance' so as to exclude removal of goods or transportation of goods from the factory especially when the inclusive part of the definition provides eligibility to credit for any activities relating to business. H) Whether the Tribunal went wrong in construing the expression 'inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expression 'time of removal' which appears only in section 4(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in deciding the time of payment of duty which expression is conspicuous by its absence in section 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 defining input service especially when time of payment is an irrelevant factor in deciding the eligibility of Cenvat credit on any input services defined under section 2(l) of the Rules. M) Whether the Tribunal went wrong in placing reliance on the decision of the Larger Bench in Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd. and others reported in 2000 38 RLT 718(T) which had only decided as to whether something would qualify as input or capital goods and the scheme of input services were not eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RAMASAMY, the CMA filed on 30.04.2009 with C.M.A.No.1591/2009 against the order passed by the CESTAT, Chennai in APPEAL 0198 2007. Appellant: M/s. INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING Counsel: S. Muthuvenkataraman Ms.1404/1996 smvr19@gmail.com 9841729113, 9591071418 No.7 (Old No.4) Skandalaya, Justice Sundaram Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Urgency: The Appellant has opted for SVLDRS scheme and has paid the dues. The Appellant seeks the permission of this Hon'ble High Court to kindly allow for the withdrawal of the CMA as the same has been settled under the SVLDRS Scheme. In these circumstances, the Appellant seeks the kind indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to treat the matter as urgent, allow mentioning for withdraw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
