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

JYOTI BALASUNDARAM
Motherson Automotive Tech & Engineering – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
T.R. Ramesh,Indira Sisupal

ORDER

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. Sinc

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