Punjab-Haryana High Court
Commissioner,Central Excise Delhi-Iv vs Star Wire India Ltd on 7 May, 2018
Bench: Rajesh Bindal, Deepak Sibal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No. 106 CEA No. 31 of 2017 (O&M)
Date of decision : 07.05.2018
Commissioner Central Excise Delhi-IV ..... Appellant
VERSUS
Star Wire India Ltd. ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL Present: Mr. Manav Satija, Advocate, for Mr. Sharan Sethi, Advocate, for the appellant.
. . . RAJESH BINDAL, J:
Order dated 20.09.2016, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short the 'Tribunal') in Appeal No. E/1098/2007 has been impugned by filing the present appeal in which the following substantial questions of law have been raised: -
"(i) Whether electricity so generated and cleared to the grid outside the factory be treated as transaction of 'sale' defined in section 2(h) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as held by the adjudicating authority in its O-I-O or not, as held by the CESTAT in its final order?
(ii) Whether electricity so generated and cleared/sold to the grid outside the factory premises can be treated as captively used for the manufacture of final products and the Cenvat Credit availed on inputs used in the power so generated is admissible under the provisions of Rule 57A, 57B of Central Excise Rules, 1944, 57AB, 57AA of Central Excise (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2000 and 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2018 02:26:17 ::: CEA No. 31 of 2017 (O&M) [2] Rule 2 and 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and 2002 and thereby availed inadmissible Modvat/Cenvat credit, as held by the CESTAT in para 7 of the final order?
(iii) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT, Chandigarh was correct in passing the Final order No. A/61419/2016-EX[DB] dated 20.09.2016 through which department's appeal was dismissed and upheld the O-I-O No. 112-
113/CE/Appl/DLH-IV-2006 dated 12.01.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal), not taking into account, the provisions mentioned in Rule 57A, 57B of Central Excise Rules, 1944, 57AB, 57AA of Central Excise (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2000 and Rule 2 and 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and 2002?
(iv) Whether the judgment of the Hon'ble CESTAT court was sustainable in law?"
A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that an earlier order deciding an identical issue in Jindal Stainless Ltd. 2009 (239) ELT 49 (Tri.-Del.) has been relied upon. The appellant has not shown whether the revenue challenged the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in Jindal Stainless Ltd. case (supra).
Once earlier view expressed by the Tribunal has been accepted by the department, we do not find that any substantial question of law to arise in the present appeal.
Dismissed.
2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2018 02:26:17 ::: CEA No. 31 of 2017 (O&M) [3] Consequently, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is also dismissed.
[RAJESH BINDAL ] JUDGE [ DEEPAK SIBAL ] 07.05.2018 JUDGE shamsher Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2018 02:26:17 :::