Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Trichy on 12 January, 2010

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI


Appeal Nos.E/277/03 & E/340/03

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.25/2003-(SCN) TRY II  dated Nil.1.2003 and OIA No.44/2003-(SCN)TRYII 
dt. 31.1.2003 both passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli]

For approval and signature:

Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member 



1.	Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT	 (Procedure) Rules, 1982?					           		:

2.	Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the 
	CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?				      	     	 :

3.	Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
	the Order?								     	 :

4.	Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
	Authorities?							     	 :

	
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. 
Appellant/s

         
       Versus
     

Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Respondent/s

Appearance :

Shri M.N.Bharathi, Advocate Shri C.Rangaraju, SDR For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 12.1.2010 Date of decision : 12.1.2010 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram Credit of additional duty of customs has been held to be admissible only to the extent of 75% for the reason that this restriction came in on 1.3.97 which is prior to the date of installation of capital goods in the factory of the appellants. The receipt of the capital goods however was prior to 1.3.97.

2. We have heard both sides and find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by Tribunals order in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs Raj Cement [ 2000 (159) ELT 302] holding that date of receipt of goods in the factory of the assessees is the material date and since the goods were received prior to 1.3.97, the assessees were entitled to take 100% credit. The above decision has been followed in the case of The India Cements Ltd. Vs CCE Trichy vide Final Order No.1615/09 dt. 6.11.09. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we set aside the impugned orders denying credit and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any, due to the appellants in accordance with law.



		(Dictated and pronounced in open court)





(Dr.CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY)	        (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
      TECHNICAL MEMBER		               VICE-PRESIDENT 	


gs



1


2