2012 (3) TMI 355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r dated 17-6-2011. Vide the said order, the appeal itself was rejected. 2. The appellants challenged the said order before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, who vide its order dated 2-8-2011, set aside the same on the ground that the appellants were not given an opportunity to argue on the appeal inasmuch as the matter was fixed heard only on the stay petition. Accordingly, the appellants were given liberty to file application for recall of the said order dated 17-6-2011 and to decide the matter afresh. Subsequently, on an application filed by the appellants, the said order stands recalled and stay petition relisted. In view of the above, the stay petition in both the appeals stand heard by us. 2. The appellants are engaged in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le. He submits that the Tribunal's decision in the case of Paras Petrofils Ltd. reported in 2009 (237) E.L.T. 367 (Tri.); Jindal Drugs Ltd. reported in 2011 (267) E.L.T. 653 (Tri.-Del.); and Sidhi Vinayak Industries reported in 2010 (260) E.L.T. 308 (Tri.) which hold against the assessee stands passed without making any reference to the earlier Tribunal's decisions which declared the law in favour of the assessee. He draws our attention to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor P. Ltd. reported in 2007 (217) E.L.T. 403 (Tri.) and in the case of Tatra Truck India Ltd. reported in 2008 (227) E.L.T. 269 specific attention also stands drawn to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Modern Petrofils Ltd., Final Order No. A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y dismissed their submission. He also clarified that the quantum of credit available to them would be much more than the duty confirmed against them, thus neutralizing the entire quantum of confirmation of demand. 5. Countering the argument, ld. DR appearing for the Revenue submits that inasmuch as the Tribunal's decision in the case of Paras Petrofils & Others referred to in the preceding paragraphs are in favour of the Revenue, the appellants' plea that NCCD was also exempted along with the exemption of other duties of Excise cannot be accepted. As regards, availability of credit, it stands submitted that inasmuch as no procedure was followed by the appellants, the plea of revenue neutrality cannot be accepted. 6. After ca....