Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Mrpl on 9 June, 2010
Bench: N.K.Patil, Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JUNE. 2010
"PRESENT ,g
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N K PATEL.
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVINB:-.KUfv!§i.Rp"'»_.
C.E.A. No. 20/2007 . A
BETWEEN: A A A A A A
THE COMMISSIONER EENIEAL Excisuigs...
7114 FLOOR, TRADE CENTi?.E;~. ._
BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD. MAN€3ALQRE--3..
, _ ._ 1 'ff;E...pAPPELLANT
(By Sri. Y. Hariprasadf. Adfv.'.}:' =
AND:'
VIILAGE VIA
. * A _ ...RESPONDEN'l'
.00<'{B.y,Sri. Chaflderkumar & Associates, Advs.]
****=I=
' This No.20/2007 is fiied U/S. 35(0) of the Central
j Excise Act,' 1944, against the order dated 30.08.2006 passed
""111 Final, Order No. 1392/2006, in E. Appeal No. 583/2005,
A ~p1'ayé.I1g to (i) decide the question of law as stated therein, (ii)
' _ 'set- aside the order passed by the CESTAT Appeal No.
5133/2005 81 Fina} Order No.1392/2006 dated 30.08.2006
0' ...vide Annexure--»A. in the interest of justice and equity.
This C.E.A. coming on for Hearing this day, N.K. PATIL J,
delivered the following:
:JUDG MENT:
This appeal is by the revenue,
against an order dated 3o--8--_2ooe passe}:llrnt_'_,.appea1,,
No.58?)/2005, and its final orderét.,Nc;;"1392,r2'0o'e '
the Customs, Excise 8: T.é1x__ ~Ti'ibunai,
South Zonal Bench, ;Banga,l,ore;'p'--.aiad for"eon,sidering the
following questions of
(a) Whetherthe _r1gl*L'tx'in setting aside the
_C)10.:holding thatthe exempted product,
when the Central Excise
Act 'levy of duty on all goods
rnaiiufaetii-red:_'"or"produeed whether they are by
_ _ pro€l11v_ots.othle_IWise?
5,,5{b);p_'Wi1tetherVthe'Tribunal was right in holding that in
T the IOC's order, the question of reversing
A of 8% does not arise, when M/ s MRPL
no other option than to pay duty of 8% on the
" yaiue of the Sulphur cleared as per rule 6[3}(b) of
Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, for their failure / inability
to comply with rule 6(2) of Cenvat Rules, 2002, as
A/«
the said rule does not make any difference between
the goods manufactured or by-products'?
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned Counsel appearing for the
3. Learned counsel for the respondent at-.the_' outset
submitted that the appeal filed by the appelluaintl be dismissed as not maintainable appellant has not obtaine'd.4__.
Committee of Disputes. He further that since the subject ;':d;irec'tly*-covered";by judgment of the Apex Court case iiljlliatural Gas Corporations Ltd., Vs. City 'land Development Corporation """--Mah"a'ra$htra Iatd;;""and others (2007) 7 sec 39, the "'ti1_nstarit also be dismissed as not maintainable. '' to the same, learned counsel appearing d'-..._--*for the "appellant has not disputed the law laid down by the jliflourt and submitted that it is mandatory on the part the appellant to obtain certificate from the Committee of 74/ Disputes and in the light of the judgment of the Apex, Court this appeai is liable to be dismissed.
5. In the light of the submission madeibly the instant appeal filed by the appellant disniiss:ed:7as"'n0tt'. maintainable reserving liberty to -to appeai on the same cause oi"
certificate from the it so advised and need arises. » 1 J"bEhzd%fiildUDG '''' Sd/3;
JUDGE