9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (hereinafter referred to as CESTAT for short) in Appeal no. E/1385/02 dated 30.03.2004. Respondent, (hereinafter referred to as Assessee for short) is Limited Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is not in dispute that the respondent is engaged in manufacturing tyres of Animal Drawn Vehicles. It is the contention of the assessee/respondent that the Furnace Oil is an input used as a fuel during the manufacturing process of the final product i.e. tyres drawn by animal vehicles. According to respondent, they are entitled for such Modvat credit. 3. Joint Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Panaji, Goa, had issued show cause notice to the respondent dated 24.08.1999, which is on record (Page 17). It has been stated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther stated that they are reversing the Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of ADV tyres. The amount of Modvat reversal towards ADV tyres includes the amount of Modvat credit on Furnace Oil used in the manufacture of ADV tyres also. Thus the amount of reversal includes Furnace Oil also till March 1997. The rate of reversal has been informed by the Department by communication dated 08.03.1995. Reference is made to the change in Rule 57CC from 01.03.1997. It is further stated that reversal details have been submitted with effect from 01.04.1997. In respect of ADV tyres reference of the communication dated 23.09.1990 is also made. Grievance is also raised that the Department cannot invoke the provisions laid down under Section 11A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbai. It was registered as File No. 34/GOA/2001. After hearing the respondent, this appeal came to be rejected by the learned Commissioner (appeals) by the Order passed on 19.02.2002. In other words, the Order passed by the Joint Commissioner was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals of Central Excise) Mumbai. The rejection of the appeal of the present respondent-assessee by the Commissioner (Appeals) was further carried by the assessee-respondent to the Appellate Tribunal i.e. CESTAT, Mumbai. It was registered as Appeal No. E-1385/02. This appeal, after hearing the parties came to be allowed by the Appellate Tribunal i.e. CESTAT by the Order passed on 30.03.2004. It is this Order which is challenged by the Revenue by filing this appeal befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have considered the scheme of Rule 57A in its entirety i.e. from sub-rule (1) up till sub rule (6). 9. In our opinion, the learned Appellate Tribunal is justified in interpreting sub-rule (4) of 57A and turning down the finding of the Lower Authorities. 10. The learned Counsel for the revenue fairly referred to some judicial pronouncements. One of them is the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 41 (P & H) in the matter of Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi-IV vs. Super Auto (I) Ltd. Learned Asst. Solicitor General has invited our attention to paragraph no. 8 and 9 of the Judgment. 11. The second judicial pronouncement relied by the Asst. Solicitor General is in the matter of Union of India vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
