OSRAM SURYA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE INDORE
LAWS(SC)-2002-5-54
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
May 02,2002
OSRAM SURYA PRIVATE LIMITED
Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,INDORE
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
TATA DAVY LIMITED VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED]EICHER MOTORS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE PUNE VS. DAI ICHI KARKARIA LIMITED [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS [LAWS(KAR)-2003-12-46] [REFERRED TO]PRIYESH VASUDEVAN VS. SHAMEENA P [LAWS(KER)-2005-11-61] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYESH VASUDEVAN VS. SHAMEENA P MANAGER [LAWS(KER)-2005-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
I T C LIMITED VIRGINIA HOUSE CALCUTTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2004-1-94] [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUGA BLEACHING WORKS ANANTHAN KADU VS. REGISTRAR CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(MAD)-2005-11-68] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI VS. MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED [LAWS(P&H)-2006-10-327] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE RAJASTHAN TEXCHEM LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-11-27] [REFERRED TO (S.C.) = (2002) 9 SCC 20]
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. VS. CC & CE (APPEALS), HYDERABAD [LAWS(CE)-2007-2-79] [REFERRED TO]
COMMR. OF C. EX. & CUS., BBSR-II VS. BHUSHAN LTD. [LAWS(CE)-2008-6-95] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., N.E.R., SHILLONG [LAWS(CE)-2007-4-171] [REFERRED TO]
SRI SHANMUGA BLEACHING WORKS VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2004-12-328] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2014-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE RAJASTHAN TEXCHEM LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-11-92] [REFERRED TO]
DREAM CASTLE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-234] [REFERRED TO]
SAMTEL INDIA LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR [LAWS(SC)-2003-3-137] [REFERRED TO]
TRACO CABLE CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COCHIN [LAWS(CE)-2003-9-264] [REFERRED TO]
PANJON LIMITED VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2004-12-225] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. OSWAL FATS AND OILS [LAWS(CE)-2003-10-322] [REFERRED TO]
FERROUS FORGINGS PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2003-7-247] [REFERRED TO]
CCE VS. GUPTA RUBBER [LAWS(CE)-2004-2-356] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LTD. [LAWS(CE)-2002-10-171] [REFERRED TO]
ITI LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2004-10-301] [REFERRED TO]
ASPEE AGRO EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT, COMMISSIONEROF SALES TAX [LAWS(GJH)-2016-7-57] [REFERRED TO]
COMMR OF C EX , CHENNAI-I VS. AMALGAMATIONS VALEO CLUTCH PVT LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2006-7-353] [REFERRED]
RATHI ISPAT LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-2009-10-315] [REFERRED]
COMMR. OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD-I VS. BALKRISHNA TEXTILES MILLS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-2-352] [REFERRED TO]
CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(DLH)-2018-2-79] [REFERRED TO]
JCB INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED [LAWS(BOM)-2018-3-369] [REFERRED TO]
FILCO TRADE CENTRE PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2018-9-233] [REFERRED TO]
HI BRIGHT APPARELS (P) LTD VS. CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-72] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE MOTORS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
NELCO LIMITED A COMPANY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-3-484] [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE VS. SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2020-10-87] [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE VS. SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2020-10-87] [REFERRED TO]
S.S.INDUSTRIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2020-12-762] [REFERRED TO]
NORTH END FOOD MARKETING PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-181] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Santosh Hegde, J. -
(1.)In regard to the interpretation of the second proviso to Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short 'the Rules'), two different Benches of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the tribunal') have taken conflicting views consequent to which the issue came to be referred to a larger Bench of the tribunal which by this order dated 11-7-2000 made in Appeal No. E/273/99-NB and other connected matters took the view that after the introduction of the said proviso, a manufacturer cannot take the Modvat credit after six months from the date of the documents specified in the first proviso to Rule 57G of the Rules.
(2.)Being aggrieved by the said order of the tribunal, the appellants have preferred these appeals questioning the correctness of that order.
(3.)Prior to the introduction of the second proviso to Rule 57G i.e. prior to 29-6-1995, a manufacturer was entitled to withdraw the said credit at any time without there being a limitation on such withdrawal. On 29-6-1995, second proviso to Rule 57G was introduced by substituting the then existing proviso and the newly introduced proviso read thus: "Provided further that the manufacturer shall not take credit after six months of the date of issue of any of the documents specified in first proviso to this sub-rule:"
(2.)Being aggrieved by the said order of the tribunal, the appellants have preferred these appeals questioning the correctness of that order.
(3.)Prior to the introduction of the second proviso to Rule 57G i.e. prior to 29-6-1995, a manufacturer was entitled to withdraw the said credit at any time without there being a limitation on such withdrawal. On 29-6-1995, second proviso to Rule 57G was introduced by substituting the then existing proviso and the newly introduced proviso read thus: "Provided further that the manufacturer shall not take credit after six months of the date of issue of any of the documents specified in first proviso to this sub-rule:"
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.