Commissioner Central Excise Commissione., Ldh v. M/S Hero Cycle Limited (Crd) , Ludhiana

CEA No.91 of 2011 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CEA No.91 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision.21.08.2018 Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate Ludhiana ...Appellant Vs M/s Hero Cycle Limited

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Anshuman Chopra , Advocate for the appellant.

-.- RAJESH BINDAL J.

The appellant in the present appeal has challenged the order dated 21.01.2011 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi arising out of Appeal No.E/1313/2005-EX(DB), raising the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is proper and legal?

(ii) Whether credit on inputs removed from the premises of depot without the cover of valid duty paying documents as prescribed under erstwhile Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is admissible on the invoices issued by the manufacturer of such inputs i.e. whether credit is admissible without following the provisions laid down under the Statute?

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.08.28 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CEA No.91 of 2011 (O&M) -2- (iii) Whether penalty can be imposed less than the recovery of Modvat (now CENVAT) credit confirmed by the CESTAT under Rule 57-I (4) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944." At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount involved in the present appeal is ` 30,22,774/-. As the amount involved is less than the limit prescribed in the Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (Judicial Cell) dated 11.07.2018, the present appeal be dismissed as not maintainable.

Ordered accordingly.

However, it is made clear that dismissal of present appeal will not be taken as upholding the order passed by the Tribunal as the legal issue raised therein is left open to be considered in an appropriate case.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE August 21, 2018 Pankaj*/yogesh sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.08.28 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document