COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. ACE GLASS CONTAINER LTD
LAWS(UTN)-2013-9-11
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on September 11,2013

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE Appellant
VERSUS
Ace Glass Container Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) On 23rd March, 2006, a show-cause notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut-I, to the respondent herein. In the said notice, it was indicated that the respondent was not entitled to cenvat credit in relation to, amongst others, Colomony Powder, Welding Electrodes, Plastic Crates & Pallets and input services pertaining to mobile phones, taxi service and telephones installed. The said showcause was duly replied by the respondent. The Joint Commissioner (ADJ), Central Excise, Meerut-I, considered the show-cause and the reply thereto and passed an order dated 31st August, 2006. Respondent, accordingly, went before the Commissioner of Appeals and failed to succeed in relation to the matters referred to above, but succeeded in relation to the remaining matters for which the respondent was showcaused. Appellant did not approach the Tribunal in respect of the success that the respondent obtained from the Commissioner of Appeals. However, respondent approached the Tribunal in respect of its unsuccess pertaining to Colomony Powder, Welding Electrodes, Plastic Crates & Pallets and credit on input services viz. taxi service, mobile phones and telephones and succeeded in all. Hence, the appellant is before us.
(2.) Appellant is not pressing the appeal pertaining to Colomony Powder. It is, however, pressing the appeal in relation to Welding Electrodes, Plastic Crates & Pallets as well as credit on input services viz. taxi service, mobile phones and telephones.
(3.) The Tribunal has allowed the claim of the respondent on account of Welding Electrodes based on a judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2008 228 ELT 517). The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to inform us, whether the appellant, who was also a party to the said judgment, has challenged the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or not. Similarly, the claim on account of Plastic Crates & Pallets was allowed by the Tribunal on the basis of a decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Banco Products (India) Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara-I,2009 91 RLT 216). The learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to inform us, whether the said judgment has been appealed against or not. The credit on input services was allowed principally on the ground that, in the show-cause notice, it was not mentioned that such services are not being used for the purpose of manufacture.;


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