TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court directs reconsideration of CESTAT decision on raw material transfer & duty credit</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR Versus CENTRAL CABLES PVT. LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR Versus CENTRAL CABLES PVT. LTD. - 2013 (287) E.L.T. 56 (Bom.) , 2017 (48) S.T.R. 311 (Bom.) Issues:1. Interpretation of substantial question of law under Section 35G(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Transfer of raw materials to job workers and credit of duty paid.3. Application of judicial discipline by CESTAT in considering directions from High Court order.4. Correctness of CESTAT's decision in not addressing specific questions raised.Analysis:1. Interpretation of Substantial Question of Law:The High Court addressed a substantial question of law under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, related to the correctness of CESTAT's decision and the application of judicial discipline in considering the directions from the High Court order. The judgment highlighted the need to resolve the legal issues arising from the appeal.2. Transfer of Raw Materials and Credit of Duty Paid:The case involved M/s. Central Cables Private Limited purchasing raw materials and transferring them to job workers for manufacturing intermediate products. The job workers returned the manufactured goods to the company, with the company claiming full credit under Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The dispute centered around whether the job workers were entitled to take credit for duty paid by the company on the raw materials.3. Application of Judicial Discipline by CESTAT:The judgment raised concerns about CESTAT's adherence to judicial discipline in addressing the directions from the High Court order. It questioned whether CESTAT had correctly considered the specific questions posed by the High Court and whether the legal principles were applied appropriately in the decision-making process.4. Correctness of CESTAT's Decision:The High Court found that CESTAT had not adequately addressed the key legal issues, particularly regarding the transfer of raw materials to job workers and the credit of duty paid. The judgment emphasized the importance of a thorough analysis of the facts and legal principles involved in determining the correct application of excise laws. As a result, the High Court quashed CESTAT's decision and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with the law, directing CESTAT to address all questions formulated in the previous judgment.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on resolving the legal complexities surrounding the transfer of raw materials, credit of duty paid, and the application of judicial discipline by CESTAT. The decision highlighted the need for a meticulous examination of the facts and legal provisions to ensure a fair and accurate interpretation of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
