COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. ESSEL PROPACK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. S. Linhares, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. P. Kamat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. The above appeal was admitted by this Court by Order dated 16th April, 2008, on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) WE have extensively heard learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. The only contention sought to be raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that despite of the Explanation to Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the respondents are not entitled for such a credit, as they do not provide any output service. The learned Counsel further points out that the activities carried out by the respondents do not come within the meaning of 'output service' as provided in Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The learned Counsel has, thereafter, taken us through the order of CESTAT to point out that the provisions have been misconstrued to come to the conclusion that the respondents were entitled for such credit.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and with their assistance, we have also gone through the record. In order to examine the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, it would be appropriate to note Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which reads thus: