| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 501 2010 SLD 501 (2010) 14 SCC 744 |
Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3976 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPEAL No. 3747 OF 2007, CIVIL APPEAL No. 4704 OF 2007, CIVIL APPEAL No. 5896 OF 2008 & CIVIL APPEAL No. 5894 OF 2008, on 29 November, 2010
BENCHD.K., JAIN, H.L. DATTU
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3976 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPEAL No. 3747 OF 2007, CIVIL APPEAL No. 4704 OF 2007, CIVIL APPEAL No. 5896 OF 2008 & CIVIL APPEAL No. 5894 OF 2008, on 29 November, 2010
BENCHD.K., JAIN, H.L. DATTU
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd, Up
VS
Commr. Of Central ... on 29 November, 2010 RAMALA SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD., U.P. --Appellant VS COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-I --Respondent
Law:
Section:
ORDER D.K. JAIN, J.: 1. Challenge in these civil appeals, filed under Section 35(L) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act") is to the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"), inter alia, holding that welding electrodes used in the maintenance of machines were not eligible for credit as "inputs" under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 (for short "the 2002 Rules"). 2. In view of the order we propose to make in all these appeals, at this stage, we deem it unnecessary to narrate the facts in each of the tagged appeals. However, in order to comprehend the controversy in these appeals, a brief reference to the facts in Civil Appeal No.3976 of 2007 would suffice: The appellant viz. Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills, (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee") engaged in the manufacture of V.P. sugar and molasses, availed of CENVAT credit on welding electrodes, falling under sub-heading 8311.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short "the Tariff Act"), under Rule 2 of the 2002 Rules. The Range Superintendent, vide his letter dated 21st November, 2002 asked the assessee to furnish details of use of welding electrodes in their factory. The assessee replied to the said letter on 28th November, 2002 stating that the said goods are used in the maintenance of their plants and machinery. 3. Thereafter, three show cause notices dated 4th October 2002, 3rd April 2003 and 7th July 2003 were issued to the assessee for the periods February 2002, March 2002 to October 2002 and November 2002 to April 2003, respectively proposing to recover the wrongly availed credit amount for those periods amounting to a total of `1,33,871/- together with interest and penalty. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut, vide Order-in-Original dated 20th August 2004 confirmed the demand of `1,33,871/-. The Assistant Commissioner also imposed a penalty of equal amount under Rule 13 of the 2002 Rules and charged interest under Section 11AB of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Meerut, who rejected the same videβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492