Case Law Details
M/s. Sanvijay Rolling & Engineering Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Bombay High Court)
Once the assessees derive no benefit by not reversing cenvat credit on the inputs, when sister concerns are also eligible to take that credit, then, in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence particularly on the diversion of inputs, the principle or doctrine of revenue neutrality, which was applied in that case by the Tribunal, was rightly upheld. The principle of revenue neutrality,which was applied in that case by the Tribunal in identical facts and circumstances, was challenged by the Revenue in Appeal but the Revenue’s Appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was not raising any substantial question of law. The Tribunal follows one course in identical facts and circumstances, but refuses to follow that in another case of similar nature. This is the precise reason for which we term the order under Appeal as vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of record and clear perversity. It is that which enables us to interfere with it and to set it aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT / ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-
1. By these Appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as, “the said Act”), the assessee is challenging the final order dated 21st July, 2015 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (CESTAT). After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the Appeals raise substantial questions of law. The Appeals are therefore admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the demand raised by the Respondents is sustainable since even if credit is denied to the Appellants, it is simultaneously available to other factories who according to the Respondents have received the inputs under consideration?
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
