Page 192 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

526 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

21. Needless to say, any observations made hereinabove will not im-
pact the final outcome of the case. The respondents will carry out the mandate of
this order with due expedition, though, not later than one (1) week from the date
of receipt of a copy of the order.
22. The writ petitions and pending applications are disposed of, in the
aforementioned terms. There shall, however be no order as to costs.
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 526 (M.P.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
Ajay Kumar Mittal, CJ. and Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
COMMISSIONER OF CGST, CUSTOMS & EXCISE, JABALPUR
Versus
MAIHAR CEMENT
C.E.A. Nos. 76, 81, 77, 78, 80 & 83 of 2018, decided on 9-1-2020
Cenvat credit - Common inputs and capitals goods for manufacture of
dutiable and exempted goods - Obligation of manufacturer not maintaining
separate accounts - Change in law - Amendment to Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat
Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f. 1-3-2008 vide Notification No. 10/2008-C.E. (N.T.) -
Issue of ‘sale’ put up by the assessee no longer available in view of changes
brought in said Rule as after amendment it is ‘removal’ and not ‘sale’ - Drop-
ping of demand correct only upto February, 2008 in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) ibid
and demand raised for period March, 2008 onward required to be examined in
terms of changes brought in said Rule - Matter remitted back to Tribunal for a
fresh decision by taking into consideration significant changes made in Rule
6(3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. [paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]
Matter remanded
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Siddharth Seth, Learned Counsel, for the
Appellant.
Shri Aditya Adhikari, Learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Ms. Pranjali Jaiswal, for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.]. - Regard being had to the
similative of the matters as they involve common substantial question of law,
they are being decided by the common order.
2. The present appeals are filed under sub-section (1) of Section 35G of
the Central Excise Act, 1944, against the final order passed in the appeal by the
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
3. These appeals were admitted to determination of the following sub-
stantial question of law :-
“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justi-
fied in ignoring the significant changes made in Rule 6(3)(i) vide Notifica-
tion No. 10/2008, dated 1-3-2008?”

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  192