Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Central Excise & Customs vs Pcl Oil & Solvents Ltd on 2 December, 2009
Bench: K.A.Puj, Rajesh H.Shukla
TAXAP/1891/2008 1/2 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL No. 1891 of 2008
=====================================
COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, Appellant(s)
Versus
PCL OIL & SOLVENTS LTD., Opponent(s)
=====================================
Appearance :
MR.VARUN K.PATEL for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) : 1,
=====================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date : 02/12/2009
ORAL ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vapi has filed this Tax Appeal under Sec. 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the appeal memo, originally 07 questions were proposed. However, at the time of hearing of this Tax Appeal for admission, the learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Varun Patel, appearing for the Central Excise Department has reframed following two substantial questions for determination and consideration of this Court, which are reproduced as under:
1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessee has violated the provisions of Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rule, 1944 by paying the central excise duty equivalent to CANVET credit availed by it instead of paying TAXAP/1891/2008 2/2 ORDER the Central Excise duty at an appropriate rate?
2. Whether, in the fact and circumstances of the case, the learned CESTAT was right in law in holding that the issue involved is covered by the decision of larger bench of the tribunal in the case of CCE, Vadodara Vs. Asia Brown Boveri Limited though the said decision in the case of CCE, Vadodara Vs. Asia Brown Boveri Limited was with respect to Rule 57(F)(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which is literally different provision then Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?
2. Heard, Mr. Varun Patel, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Central Excise Department and perused the order of the Tribunal.
3. We are of the view that the substantial questions of law do arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Hence, above referred two questions are framed as substantial questions of law for determination and consideration of this Court, after the appeal being admitted.
4. Notice to the other side. Additional paperbook, if any, to be filed within three months from today.
[ K. A. Puj, J. ] [ Rajesh H. Shukla, J. ] hiren