Page 48 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

A22 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

CEAC No. 23/2019 & C.M. No. 40312/2019 (for stay)
CEAC No. 24/2019 & C.M. No. 40314/2019 (for stay)
1. Having heard both the sides and looking to the issues involved in
these Central Excise Appeal cases, the substantial question of law involved
in these appeals is as under :
“Whether CESTAT was correct in holding that appellant, en-
gaged in manufacture of chewing tobacco and operating under the
Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines
(Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, was en-
titled to refund of Cenvat Credit lying unutilized on date of closure of
unit?”
2. Admit.
3. Registry is directed to list these two Central Excise Appeal cases
for final disposal on 9th January, 2020 in the category of ‘After Notice Mis-
cellaneous Matters’.
C.M. No. 40312/2019 & 40314/2019 (stay)
4. In the meanwhile, stay already granted by this Court vide order
dated 11-9-2019 shall stand continued to be operative during the pendency
and final hearing of these Central Excise Appeal cases. Accordingly, stay
applications are hereby disposed of.”
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that the Cenvat
credit lying unutilized in books of account of tobacco manufacturer who closed
his business and surrendered Central Excise registration, was liable to be refund-
ed in cash. The contention of the Revenue that the provisions of Cenvat Credit
Rules, 2004 was not applicable in respect of tobacco manufacturers working un-
der Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Capacity
Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, was held to be not accepta-
ble.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. Amit Bansal and Mr. Aman Rewaria, Advocates,
for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent.
(1) Medical Equipment — Exemption on import of Electro
Therapeutic Apparatus (Theratron Phoenix Cobalt-
60) cannot be denied for failure to fulfill post import
condition - Notification No. 64/88-Cus.
(2) Confiscation of medical equipment for failure to pro-
duce installation certificate not sustainable when
there is no allegation of its non-installation - Notifi-
cation No. 64/88-Cus.
(3) Medical Equipment — There being no time-limit pre-
scribed for production of installation certificate, ask-
ing to furnish it after eight years of import not justi-
fied — Notification No. 64/88-Cus.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  96