Dismissed

The Commissioner of Central Ecise Thane-I. v. M/S Techno Chemical Industries

Bombay HC8 Sept 2005CEXA/80/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Central Excise Appeal No. 80 of 2004, the High Court Bench of V.C. Daga and J.P. Devadhar followed the Supreme Court's decision in Narayan Polyplast. The court held that no substantial question of law arose regarding Modvat credits and exempted goods. The appeal was dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.

The Commissioner of Central Ecise Thane-I. Vs M/S Techno… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶2

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2004.

¶3

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-1.

¶4

..Appellant.

¶5

V/s.

¶6

M/s. Techno Chemical Industries.

¶7

.. Respondent.

¶8

Shri Suresh Kumar with P.S. Jetly i/b T.C. Kaushik for the applicant.

¶9

CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 8.9.2005.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

. Heard learned Counsel for the Revenue.

¶13

Perused appeal memo with relevant

¶14

annexurers.

¶15

The question sought to be raised in this

¶16

appeal can conveniently be said to be covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad, vs. Narayan Polyplast 2005 (179) ELT 20 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal; wherein the Tribunal had accepted the contention of the appellant that it is the option of the assessee either to avail of the full exemption available or to pay the duty leviable on the goods manufactured by him. If the assessee chose not to avail exemption and pay duty inspite of goods being fully exempt Modvat credit could not be denied on

¶17

such	duty	paid	inputs if	used	in	manuf	acture	of
final	products.	In	otherwords,	it	is	always	open	to
the	assessee	to avail	Modvat	credit	on	the	goods,	if

¶18

no exemption was claimed on the goods on the basis

¶19

of exemption notification.

¶20

. The Supreme Court in the above case was

¶21

considering the interpretation put on the Notification No..23/88-CE by the Tribunal. The case at hand involves interpretation of exemption notification No.175/86 dated 1.3.1996. The interpretation put by the Tribunal and approved by the Supreme Court mentioned above shall also hold

¶22

good for the interpretation of the notification

¶23

involved in the case at hand.

¶24

In the above view of the matter, in our

¶25

opinion, no substantial question of law is involved

¶26

in this appeal. Appeal is, thus, dismissed in

¶27

limine with no order as to costs.