Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Ispat Metallics (India) Ltd

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal4 March 2015

CitationAPPEAL NO. E/423/06-MUM,

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a case is squarely covered by a binding decision of the Supreme Court, the Tribunal is bound to follow that decision and decides the matter by applying it, without independent examination of the underlying issue.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALWEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAICOURT NO. IIAPPEAL NO. E/423/06-MUM,E/CO-381/06-MUM

[Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. AT/ 557& 558/RGD/2005 dtd. 28/102005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-Zone II]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member(Technical) Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial)

=======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

=======================================================

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Raigad :

Appellants

M/s. Ispat Metallics (India) Ltd :

Respondent

Appearance

Shri. V. K. Shastri, Asst. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Appellants Shri. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate with Ms. Manya Bhardwaj, Advocatefor the Respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing: 4/3/2015 Date of decision 4/3/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : P.K. Jain

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a manufacturer of Sponge Iron and steel product. During the production of Sponge Iron from Blast furnace a gas is produced which is exempted from payment of excise duty under Notification No. 76/86 dated 10/2/86. The said Blast Furnace Gas was being sold by them to other customer, and respondent assessee were paying amount equal to 8% on the total price of Blast Furnace Gas under Rule 57AD (2) (b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Later on respondent filed refund claim for said amount and according to them the said Blast Furnace Gas is a by-product and therefore no Cenvat Credit is required to be reversed corresponding to inputs in the manufacture of the said by-product. The original authority rejected their claim however first appellate authority allowed the claim. Aggrieved by the said order Revenue is in appeal before us.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Ld A.R. elaborated the grounds of appeal and also quoted Honble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bambay Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. [1995(77) E.L.T. 790 (S.C.)

4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand stated that this issue is now settled by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors Vs. M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd [2014-TIOL-55-SC-CX].

5. We have gone through the said judgment of the Honble Supreme court and find that the present case is squarely covered by the said decision of the Supreme Court. In view of this position, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Respondent has also filed cross objection which are also dispose of in above terms.

(Operative part pronounced in court)

Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) P.K. Jain Member (Technical)

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free