Dismissed

M/s. The India Cements Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise

Telangana HC5 Feb 2013CEA/35/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order dismisses an appeal preferred under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court held that the issue no longer survives adjudication because the Supreme Court allowed a review petition, validating duty paid retrospectively and defeating the assessee's claim for modvat credit.

What did the court decide?

No costs. The appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed.

M/s. The India Cements Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶3

CEA No.35 of 2004

¶4

Order : ( Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice GODA RAGHURAM )

¶5

The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ( for short “the Act”) no longer survives for adjudication.

¶6

The appeal is preferred against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore ( Tribunal) dated 28.4.2004 rejecting the appeal preferred by the assessee.

¶7

In the impugned order, the Tribunal relied on the decision of a Larger Bench of the Tribunal reported in CHEMO PULP TISUES v. CCE, MEERUT^[1] , wherein the Tribunal held that by the Finance Act, 2000 modvat credit was retrospectively denied with effect from 16.3.1995 to 12.5.2000. It requires to be noticed that before the Tribunal on behalf of the assessee, the decision of the Supreme Court in CCE, HYDERABAD v. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD^[2] , was relied on to justify the claim for modvat credit, notwithstanding the retrospective amendment by the

¶8

Finance Act, 2000.

¶9

It is however brought to our notice by the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue that the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD v. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD^[3] , has allowed Review Petition (C) No.1172 of 2003 seeking reconsideration and recalling of its earlier judgment reported in ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD ( 2 supra ). In the latter decision, the Supreme Court reviewed its earlier order, consequently giving effect to provisions of the Finance Act 2000 whereby validation of the duty paid on high speed diesel oil was legislatively enjoined with retrospective effect from 16.3.1995.

¶10

In the above view of the matter, the appeal preferred by the assessee is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶11

_______ GODA RAGHURAM, J

M.S. RAMACHANDRA

RAO, J

Date 5- 2-13 KK

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM