Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Cegat

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Cegat

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 03, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/827776

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/827776
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: R. Jayasimha Babu and ;K. Gnanaprakasam, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 03, 2001
Case Number: R.C.P. No. 6 of 2000
Subject: Excise;Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Excise;Constitution
Acts & sections: Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57A and 57B

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Advocate K. Veeraraghavan, A.C.G.S.C.

Respondent

Cegat

Advocate T. Ramesh, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57A and 57B
Reported In: 2001(128)ELT327(Mad)

Excerpt

- r. jayasimha babu, j.1. having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the order of tribunal, we are satisfied that a question of law requiring our consideration does arise.2. the tribunal is directed to refer the following question as to, 'whether the tribunal was correct in extending the modvat credit under rule 57b on high speed diesel oil which is not specified as an input under any notification issued under rule 57a ?'.3. the tribunal is directed to submit a statement of the case together with the materials required for answering the question. we may also add here that similar question was called of in r.c.p. no. 19/2000 wherein the respondent is m/s. pallipalayam spinners ltd. salem. the tribunal shall mention this fact in the statement of case.

Full Judgment

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.

1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the order of Tribunal, we are satisfied that a question of law requiring our consideration does arise.

2. The Tribunal is directed to refer the following question as to, 'whether the Tribunal was correct in extending the Modvat credit under Rule 57B on High Speed Diesel Oil which is not specified as an input under any notification issued under Rule 57A ?'.

3. The Tribunal is directed to submit a statement of the case together with the materials required for answering the question. We may also add here that similar question was called of in R.C.P. No. 19/2000 wherein the respondent is M/s. Pallipalayam Spinners Ltd. Salem. The Tribunal shall mention this fact in the statement of case.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2001 Same Parties Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Cegat Same Subject Excise;Constitution Same Judge R. Jayasimha Babu and ;K. Gnanaprakasam, JJ. Acts & Sections Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57A and 57B

Excise;Constitution