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 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Commissioner Of Central Excise Customs ... vs Shree Khedut Sahkari Khand Udyog ... on 15 January, 2015

Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, R.P.Dholaria

         O/TAXAP/21/2015                               ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                           TAX APPEAL NO. 21 of 2015

================================================================
   COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS AND SERVICE
                      TAX....Appellant(s)
                           Versus
 SHREE KHEDUT SAHKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDALI LTD....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RJ OZA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
================================================================

        CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
               VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
               and
               HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA

                                Date : 15/01/2015


                                 ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI) Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal, besides other judgments, has heavily relied on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 300 ELT 372, where under similar circumstances, the High Court had held that in the process of manufacturing sugar, the product bagasse which comes into existence though is marketable product being waste, it cannot be stated that the manufacturer manufactures such goods. The counsel submitted that the decision of the Allahabad High Court is carried further in appeal before the Supreme Court and the Department's appeal Page 1 of 2 O/TAXAP/21/2015 ORDER is admitted. Under the circumstances, the Tax appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial question flaw:

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in holding that the respondent is not obliged to follow provision of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for Cenvat Credit taken on common inputs/input services used in the manufacture of dutiable excisable goods and, therefore, the revenue is not entitled to make recovery of duty under Rule 14 read with Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with interest and levy of penalty under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?"

(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) (pkn) Page 2 of 2