HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR C.E.A. NO.55 OF 2014 DATED:3.6.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Hyderabad-I Commissionerate LB Stadium Road Basheerbagh Hyderabad … Appellant And M/s. Mylan Laboratories Ltd., Sy.No.10, Gaddapotharam Jinnaram Mandal, Medak Dist.
Andhra Pradesh … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR C.E.A. NO.55 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dt.5.8.2013, and is sought to be admitted on the following suggested questions of law:
(i) “Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in allowing the respondent to avail Cenvat Credit on Ethanol, a non- excisable commodity, under Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which provides that a manufacture of final product shall be allowed to take the credit of duty of excise specified in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, more so when the Central Excise Officer at the supplier’s end has held the product to be wrongly classified and paid duty wrongly with intention to pass the unutilized cenvat credit to customers.
(ii) Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Hyderabad, against the respondent (MLL), when they availed the credit contrary to the provisions of Rule 3 read with Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.”
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal. It appears that the learned Tribunal has followed the settled principles of law as has been laid down by various High Courts, including the decision of Madras High Court in the case of C.C.E. Chennai v. CEGAT,
Chennai
[1]
. It is not argued that the aforesaid decision has no manner
of application to the facts and circumstances of this case.
The appeal is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 3.6.2014 bnr
[1] 2006 (202) ELT 753 (Mad.)