High CourtsDivision Bench(2016) 10 BOM CK 0061

Commissioner Of C. Ex., Nagpur-II vs Larsen and Toubro Ltd.

Bombay High Court · Decided on 14 October 2016 · Citation: (2016) 342 ELT 169

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vasanti A. Naik and Indira Jain, JJ.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Central Excise Appeal No. 6 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 243 words
1.

By this central excise appeal, the appellant-department challenges the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunals [2015 (326) E.L.T. A188 (Tri. - Mum.)], so far as it holds that the respondent-assessee would be entitled to cum-duty benefit.

2.

It was the case of the appellant-department before the Tribunal that the goods were claimed by the respondent-assessee during the relevant period without including the duty element and hence, the assessee was not entitled to cum-duty benefit. Certain judgments were relied on by the appellant-department before the Tribunal in support of the submission. The Tribunal, however, found on a reading of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act and specially the explanation appended thereto that the assessee was entitled to cum-duty benefit. Since the taxes were paid by the respondent-assessee on the goods as per the explanation to Section 4(1), the assessee was entitled to cum-duty benefit. Since the judgments that were relied on by the appellant-department, did not make a reference to the explanation that was added to the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act in the year 2003, the Tribunal rightly considered the explanation to hold that the assessee was entitled to cum-duty benefit.

3.

Since the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of grant of cum-duty benefit to the respondent-assessee does not give rise to any substantial question of law, we dismiss the central excise appeal with no order as to costs.