Back
CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, J.
Motherson Automotive Tech & Engineering -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai -Respondent
Final Order No. 676/2010 Appeal No. E/697/2007, 676 of 2010, E697 of 2007
Decided On : 22-06-2010
Act Referred
T.R. Ramesh,Indira Sisupal
Per Jyoti Balasundaram :
The issue in dispute namely admissibility of refund claim of accumulated credit in respect of the impugned goods supplied to 100% EOU without payment of duty for further manufacture and export stands settled in favour of the assessees by the Tribunal's decisions in Manoj Handlooms Vs. CCE, Chennai - 2009 (91) RLT 805 (CESTAT-Che.)=2009 (240) ELT 158, Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shilpa Copper Wire Industries - 2008 (86) RLT 16 (CESTAT-Ahmd.)=2008 (226) ELT 228 and Final Order No. 1102/2009 dated 1.9.2009 [reported in 2010 (97) RLTONLINE 658 (CESTAT-Che.)] and Final Order Nos. 584 to 587/2010 dated 26.5.2010 in the case of the same assessees. Although the learned DR would seek to distinguish these decisions by relying upon the Apex Court's decision in Sandur Micro Circuits Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belgaum - 2008 (88) RLT 795 (SC)=2008 (229) ELT 641 (SC), holding that in the case of conflict between an exemption notification and Board's Circular, the notification prevails and it cannot be whittled down or its scope restricted by a circular, it is not applicable in the facts of the present case where no conflict between any notification or circular exists. Since the issue stands settled by the earlier decisions cited supra and no contrary decision has been brought to my notice on the identical issue, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
