1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CENTRAL EXCISE REFERENCE No.5 OF 2000 (The Commissioner, Central Excise Customs, Civil Lines, Nagpur ..vs.. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai and another) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri F.T. Mirza, Advocate for the applicant, Shri S.N. Kapoor, Advocate for non-applicant/respondent No.2. CORAM:- J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED :- 24 th AUGUST, 2010 1. By this application under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (wrongly numbered as Central Excise Reference), the Commissioner of Central Excise seeks an order directing CEGAT to raise the questions of law, which read thus : “ (a) Whether the amount paid at the rate of 8% of the price of the exempted goods from the credit account maintained under sub-Rule (3) of Rule 57-G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 at the time of their clearance from the factory can be adjusted against the irregular and inadmissible Modvat credit availed of by contravention of Rule 57-CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and (b) Whether the order in Original No. 55/95 dated 2 6.6.97 of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur i.e. Applicant disallowing the MODVAT Credit wrongly availed under Rule 57-CC(I) and confirming the demand thereof and imposing mandatory penalty under Rule 57-I(4) and interest under Rule 57-I(5) has rightly been set aside by the said Order of the CEGAT.” 2. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 fairly states that in view of the retrospectively amended provisions of the Central Excise Act, the application may be allowed and the matter may be remanded back to CEGAT to decide the issues in accordance with the amended provisions. 3. Accordingly, the application is allowed. By consent of the parties the application is treated as statement of the case and by consent order of the the CEGAT dated 2nd March, 2000 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to CEGAT to decide the Appeal afresh and in accordance with law. Application treated as reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE pma