K.S. Jhaveri, J. - (1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal [2016 (343) E.L.T. 1084 (Tribunal)] whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the Department reversing the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) after remand by the High Court vide order passed in 2005.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a manufacturing unit of iron and steel products classifiable under Chapter-72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. In the first round of litigation in the year 1998 on 29th November, 2001, this Court while admitting the matter observed as under :- "Mr. Gupta submits that issue involved in this petition is covered by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 1999 (2) SCC 361 wherein the Lordships held that provisions in Rule 57F(4A) for lapsing of credit lying unutilized on 16-3-1995 that cannot be applied to the goods manufactured prior to 16-3-1995. A copy of the judgment be given to the Learned Counsel for the respondents. List this case for final hearing on 13-12-2001."
(3.) After a period of 4 years on 7-7-2005, the Division Bench allowed the matter with the following order :- "The facts are not in dispute that petitioner has purchased the capital goods in question on 30-7-1997 and excise duty of Rs. 20 lacs was paid on that capital goods, which is in the form of machinery. At that time the provision was that any excise duty paid on the capital goods may be adjusted against the excise duty liability on the goods, manufactured by the petitioner. On 1-8-1997, a notification has been issued by the Central Government directing that if any excise duty is paid on the capital goods and yet to be adjusted against the liability of excise duty, that lapses, assessee cannot take the advantage of the excise duty paid on the capital goods i.e. manufacturing machinery. Mr. Gupta, Learned Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice that similar issue has been considered by their Lordships in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. and Anr. v. U.O.I. and Ors. [(1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 361] wherein their Lordships have given some directions how to ascertain the excise liability duty payable by the assessee in such cases. Learned Counsel further submit that direction can be given to the Assistant Commissioner to pass a fresh excise duty liability order in the light of the directions given by their Lordships in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. and Anr. v. U.O.I. and Ors. (supra) Learned Counsel for the respondent has not controverted this fact that identical issue has been considered by their Lordships in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. and Anr. v. U.O.I. and Ors. (supra). Considering the submissions, we remit the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner with the direction to pass a fresh order regarding excise duty liability in the light of the direction given by their Lordships in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. and Anr. v. U.O.I. and Ors. (supra)." ;