COMMR. OF C. EX., MUMBAI-V Vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. (AUTO DIVN.)
LAWS(BOM)-2017-2-249
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on February 27,2017

Commr. Of C. Ex., Mumbai-V Appellant
VERSUS
Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. (Auto Divn.) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. - (1.) These appeals of the Revenue were admitted on substantial question(s) of law.
(2.) The substantial question of law on which Central Excise Appeal No. 85 of 2006 was admitted reads thus :- "Whether it was correct and proper for the Tribunal to set aside the impugned order-in-original and allow modvat credit in question when due to indifference in the description of goods in the subject invoices, no correlation could be established between the input scrap actually received and used in the manufacture of excisable goods and the scrap described in the invoices under which input scrap was received "?
(3.) The substantial questions of law on which the other four appeals were admitted are common to all the appeals and they read as under :- "(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CESTAT was right in allowing the Modvat/Cenvat Credit availed by M/s. Business Combine on the invoices of M/s. Mehta Trading Corporation and M/s. Steel Traders and setting aside the demand for Rs. 1,05,18,891/- confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise under Rule 57(i)(ii) read with Rule 57AH(i) and Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CESTAT was justified in setting aside the penalty of Rs. 1,05,18,891/- equal to amount of duty imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise upon M/s. Business Combine Ltd. under Rule 13-O of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944? (C) Whether the CESTAT was justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise in respect of interest at the appropriate rate on the duty amount of Rs. 1,05,18,891/- under the provisions of Rule 57-I(5) read with Rule 57AH(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 and Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944? (D) Whether the CESTAT was justified in law in setting aside the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2 lacs each on M/s. M.H. Corporation, M/s. Kohinoor Trading Corporation, M/s. Mehta Traders Corporation, M/s. National Steel Traders, Mumbai under Rule 209A read with Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002?" ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.