Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Cipla Ltd on 18 January, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. III APPEAL No. E/924/07 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AT/127/M.III/2007 dated 26.3.2007 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II) For approval and signature: Hon'ble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram (Vice President) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III Appellant Vs. Cipla Ltd. Respondent Appearance:
Shri Pramod Kumar, Authorised Representative (JDR), for appellant Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President Date of Hearing: 18.1.2008 Date of Decision: 18.1.2008 ORDER NO.................................
Per: Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President The issue in dispute in the present appeal is whether cenvat credit on LDO (fuel) used for manufacturing dutiable as well as exempted final products without maintaining separate account, requires to be primarily reversed, which is the contention of the Revenue, stands settled against the Revenue and in favour of the assessees by Tribunal's decision in CCE, Tirunelveli vs. Rajapalayam Mills 2007 (79) RLT 394, following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CCE vs. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd. reported in 2006 (193) ELT 136 (Guj.), which High Court's decision has also been followed by the Larger Bench in GNFC vs. CCE, Vadodara 2007 (208) ELT 342. Following the ratio of the above judgments, I hold that there is no warrant to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that the portion of credit attributable to fuel used in the manufacture of exempted products need not be reversed, and reject the appeal.
(Pronounced in Court) (Jyoti Balasundaram) Vice President tvu 1 2