TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r small scale exemption notification, could be availed of by an assessee simultaneously. With regard to different specified goods, there was already a decision dated 20-4-1992 of the Tribunal in the case of Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 759 (Tribunal) holding that with regard to different specified goods, the benefit of Modvat credit and the benefit of full exemption under small scale exemption Notification could be availed of simultaneously by an assessee but on different goods. This decision had been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 2-1-1996 through dismissal of the Civil Appeal filed by the Revenue. The referring Bench had noted the Five Member Larger Bench's decision dated 19-11-1994 of the Tribunal in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise, Allahabad - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal). It was however fairly agreed that the Supreme Court had admitted the Civil Appeal filed by the Revenue against this Tribunal's Order in the case of Jaina Detergent Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal) [refer page A240 of 2000 (118) E.L.T.]. Shri Prabhat Kumar, SDR submitted that in the present case the goods manufactured by the appellants were classifiable under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff, and the same specified goods even when manufactured with their own brand name as well as with the brand name of loan licensee, could not be considered as different goods. He pleaded that the issue for consideration in the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Article 133 is dismissed also with the words 'the appeal is dismissed. In the former case it has been laid by this Court that when special leave petition is dismissed this Court does not comment on the correctness or otherwise of the order from which leave to appeal is sought. But what the court means is that its does not consider it to be a fit case for exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. That certainly could not be so when appeal is dismissed though by a non-speaking order. Here the doctrine of merger applies. In that case, the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the High Court or of the Tribunal from which the appeal is provided under clause (3) of Article 133. This doctrine of merger does not apply in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a fit case where special leave petition should be granted. In Union of India v. All India Services Pensioners' Association [JT 1988 (1) SC 96= 1988 (2) SCC 580] this Court has given reasons for dismissing the special leave petition. When such reasons are given, the decision becomes one which attracts Article 141 of the Constitution which provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the courts within the territory of India. It, therefore, follows that when no reason is given, but a special leave petition is dismissed simpliciter, it cannot be said that there has been a declaration of law by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution." 5. As regards the availment of Modvat credit as well as the availmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of exempted goods. Paras 6 and 7 from that decision are extracted below :- 6. It is true that the assessee has not maintained separate accounts or segregated the inputs utilised for manufacture of dutiable goods and duty free goods, as should have been done. The contention of the Department that in this situation, the assessee is not entitled to reverse the entries and get the benefit of the tax exemption is a question which merits serious consideration. There is no doubt that the assessee should have maintained separate accounts for duty free goods and the goods on which duty has to be paid. But our attention was drawn to a departmental circular letter on this problem in which it has been clarified by the Ministry of Finance as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t before removal of the exempted final product. If this debit entry is permissible to be made, credit entry for the duties paid on the inputs utilised in manufacture of the final exempted product will stand deleted in the accounts of the assessee. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the assessee has taken credit for the duty paid on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of the final exempted product under Rule 57A. In other words, the claim for exemption of duty on the disputed goods cannot be denied on the plea that the assessee has taken credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in manufacture of these goods. 6. Drawing the similar analogy, we consider that subject to the reversal of the Modvat credit taken with regard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
