Application by Commissioner of Central Excise challenging entitlement to CENVAT credit via stock transfer notice. Court dismissed application citing Apex Court decision that tribunals are not to go against established law.
Application dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CENTRAL EXCISE APPLICATION NO.22 OF 2003
The Commissioner of Central Excise...Applicant
vs.
De.Nocil Crop Protection Ltd.
...Respondent.
Mr.P.S.Jetly with A.S.Rao & P.K.Mishra, for
Applicant.
Mr.J.H.Motwani with Jas Singhani i/b. PDS Legal, for
Respondent.
CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH &
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED: 21st October,2008.
P.C.:-
1.This application was admitted on 29.7.2005
on the following question of law:-
“Whether the Stock transfer notice/order
issued by the assessee's warehouse can be
considered as Proper duty paying documents
2
as the same is not specified in the Rule 57G
of erstwhile Central Excise Rule 1944 for
availing Modvat Credit.
Admittedly the goods in question are eligible inputs
for the purpose of availing modvat credit and the
tribunal has recorded a finding that the payment of
duty on inputs is also evidenced by bills of entries.
In these circumstances as per the decision of the
Apex Court in 2008(229) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.), the
decision of the Tribunal in holding that the assessee
is entitled to the credit would be in accordance with
law. In this view of the matter, since the decision
of the Tribunal is in conformity with the law laid
down by the Apex Court, the Application need not be
entertained. Accordingly, the application is
dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Stock transfer notice/order issued by the assessee's warehouse can be considered as Proper duty paying documents as the same is not specified in the Rule 57G of erstwhile Central Excise Ru
The Commissioner of Central Excise
De.Nocil Crop Protection Ltd.
D.K. DESHMUKH
J.P. DEVDHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court