SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(P&H) 4428

RAJESH BINDAL, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
Commissioner Of C. Ex. , Delhi-ii – Appellant
Versus
Hammer Forge – Respondent


Judgment

1. The revenue has approached this Court by filing the present petition under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, #28;the Act#29;) seeking a direction to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, #28;the Tribunal#29;) to refer following question of law arising out of order passed by the Tribunal in final Order No. A/842/02/NB(SM), dated 4-7-2002.

(i) Whether credit is admissible in terms of erstwhile provisions of Rule 57C and 57CC used in both dutiable as well as exempted goods when no separate account has been maintained with respect to exempted goods? (ii Whether credit of the specific duty can be allowed on inputs used for manufacture of final product which are exempted from the whole of the duty or are chargeable to #24;nil#25; rate of duty? (ii Whether party is at least liable to pay 8% of the of the price (excluding sales tax and other taxes if any, payable on such goods), #24;even if credit of duty is allowed#25;?

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Steel forgings and forged articles other than stainless steel of two wheeler falling under Chapter Heading No. 8714.00 of the




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top