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 affirms Tribunal's ruling on Central Excise Rules interpretation, dismissing appeal.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS. Versus MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS. Versus MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. - 2010 (256) E.L.T. 536 (Guj.) Issues:Challenge to order interpreting Central Excise Rules, 1944; Rejection of appeal on limitation grounds; Allegations of suppression or malafide; Ignoring facts of supplying steam attracting Modvat/Cenvat Credit.Analysis:1. The appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenged an order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) regarding the interpretation and application of erstwhile Rules 57B(1)(IV) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The primary issue was whether the Tribunal erred in allowing the credit of duty paid on input (Furnace Oil) used in the manufacture of Steam sold for subsequent use outside the factory of production.2. The respondent sold steam to a company during a specific period, and the demand for recovery of Modvat credit on consumption of furnace oil used in the manufacture of steam was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the appeal based on earlier Tribunal orders involving similar issues.3. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which ruled in favor of the Revenue on merits but dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The appellant vehemently contested the Tribunal's order, arguing that suppression of facts regarding the manufacture and sale of steam had been established.4. The High Court analyzed the arguments raised by the appellant and respondent. It noted that the respondent had provided relevant details and exemptions during the relevant period. The Tribunal found that there was no suppression or malafide on the part of the respondent, especially considering the decisions of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal and the High Court in favor of the respondent.5. The High Court concluded that there was no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's decision regarding the absence of suppression or malafide, thus dismissing the appeal. It was determined that no substantial question of law arose from the impugned order of the Tribunal, leading to the rejection of the appeal.In summary, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the absence of suppression or malafide on the part of the respondent and dismissing the appeal based on the lack of substantial legal questions arising from the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
