2023 (12) TMI 1472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....garathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. For the Appearing Parties : Mr. Rupesh Kumar, AOR, Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR, Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, AOR, Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv., Ms. Purnima Jauhari, Adv., Ms. Neema, Adv., Mr. S K Bagaria, Sr. Adv., Mr. Saurabh S. Sinha, Adv., Ms. Chitra Y. Parande, Adv., Mr. Gautam Prabhakar, Adv., Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR], Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR, Mr. Sanjay Grover, Adv., Mr. Shivlal Singh, Adv., Mr. Paramhans Sahani, Adv., Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AOR, Mr. Keshav Sharma, Adv., Mr. Praveen Agnihotri, Adv., Mr. Devavrat Anand, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Singh, Adv., Mr. Rahul Krishna, Adv., Mr. Raj Kumar Prasad, Adv., Mr. N. Venkatraman, A.S.G., Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Mr. V.C. Bharathi, Adv., Ms. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....na Gautam, AOR, Ms. Reena Asthana Khair, Adv., Mr. Pawan Shukla, Adv., Ms. Akanksha Tyagi, Adv., Mr. Vikram Nankani, Sr. Adv., Mr. Naresh Thacker, Adv., Mr. Kumar V., Adv., Mr. Udit Jain, Adv., Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR, Mr. Krishnamohan K., AOR, Mr. Dania Nayyar, Adv., Ms. Parul Sachdeva, Adv. ORDER 1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions. 2. Since all these appeals involve identical questions, we shall refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No. 1638 of 2006. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ("Tribunal" for short) passed on 04.05.2005 in Final Order No. A/703/05 MBS, the Assessee has preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Ms. Chitra Y. Parande, learned cou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....overed within sub-Rule 4 of Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. She further submitted that the judgment of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in Jaypee Rewa Plant having been impliedly over-ruled by the Rajasthan High Court in Union of India vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., reported in 2007 (214) ELT 510 (RAJ) by order dated 22.05.2006, which has been sustained by this Court in Union of India vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., reported in (2015) 15 SCC 312, the controversy is no longer at large. Learned counsel submitted that having regard to the reasoning of the Rajasthan High Court in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 thereof, the appeal filed by the appellant herein has to be allowed. 8. Per contra, learned ASG appearing for the respondent submitted that if....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e notification issued under sub-rule (1) and subject to the provisions of this section and the conditions and restrictions, if any, specified in the said notification. (3) The Central Government may also specify in the said notification the goods or classes of goods in respect of which the credit of specified duty may be restricted. (4) The credit of specified duty under this section shall be allowed on inputs used in the manufacture of final products as well as on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final product or not. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) the Central Government may, by notification i....