Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chennai Iv vs M/S. Resico India P. Ltd on 7 September, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. E/336/2012
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 21/2012 (M-IV) dated 12.4.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
CCE, Chennai IV Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Resico India P. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR), for the Appellant Shri R. Parthasarathy, Consultant for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of Hearing / Decision: 07.09.2015 Final Order No. 41108 / 2015 Honble High Court of Madras in the case of A.R. Metallurgicals P. Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2015 (322) ELT 49 (Mad.) has held that there cannot be denial of discharge of duty through CENVAT credit even after 1.6.2006. For convenience of reading para 4 of the said judgment is reproduced below:-
4. Since the issue raised in this civil miscellaneous appeal has already been decided by the Gujarat High Court in the judgments in Indsur Global Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2014 (310) ELT 838 (Guj.) and in Precision Fasteners Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2014-TIOL-2211-HC-AHM-CX = 2015 (316) ELT 595 (Guj.), declaring that the condition contained in sub rule (3A) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for payment of duty without utilizing the CENVAT credit till an assessee pays the outstanding amount including interest is unconstitutional and that the subsequent proceedings initiated by the Department for demanding tax were set at naught, which were followed by us in a batch of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 2506 of 2011, etc. dated 27.3.2015 (M/s. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ranipet etc. etc. v. Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance etc.) deciding the issue in favour of the assessees therein for the reasons stated therein, following the same, this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2011 is closed. No costs.
2. In view of the above, the Revenue appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex 2