Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi-I v. Vikrant Auto Industries

$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CEAC 4/2016 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I ..... Petitioner Through:

Ms.K.Enatoli Sema, Advocate versus VIKRANT AUTO INDUSTRIES ..... Respondent Through:

Mr.M.P.Devnath, Mr.Abhishek Anand and Mr.Yogendra Aldak, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

O R D E R

% 28.09.2016 Review Pet.441/2016 The review is premised upon the revenue's understanding that this court considered the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Indsur Global Ltd. vs. Union of India 2014 (310) ELT 833 (Guj.). In Indsur Global Ltd.'s case (supra), the Gujarat High Court had struck down Rule 8 sub-rule (3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as void.

The context of the reference to Indsur Global Ltd.'s case (supra) by the order of this court was because of denial of CENVAT credit to the assessee. This court did not extend in any manner the declaration made by the Gujarat High Court with respect to the portion of Rule 8 (3A) which was declared unconstitutional.

In the circumstances, the review petition is an entirely unnecessary exercise. The revenue ought not to have filed it. It is therefore dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J DEEPA SHARMA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 rb