a

T31WFT R 44, 1I

3]LQj

1Ic5 31Icc1, (4i1iRri4) qR, r—'r, ii'i'iq I

l'-lI'9

t -1 fi '3I, )cII,

STOP I IM I

Prft 1'-lic1, : 31.05.2017

1 u1

1. aT_TTr gm zrg 31)c'l \3lcl1 (c1), cIPI1rcp

(Ri 3Tht "315 3Tfr' zFT 'riiii) * im 3i4ici

314/,0JF4Z/TTTffzT-ff/2009-10 -4 tiiRci 3II'l Riicp 19.10.2010 *

1i\c I'-I'Tf T g1c11c1 ZR &ffZN, 2003 (Ri irr "rfrf"

i iiii) m TT 83 * ci4ci 1'c,c1 z , 1iic

1 R 3i-fmr, TCTT TTTFTR.~ (fuT# Wit "flflcM dir' -r

\JlI)iI) TT YIIc1 31Il I1IcI, 25.03.2009 1 3IlI1d 1ci* T5

6,40,050/— r 3TgRRT f4TM t I

2. 1 c U TT *T 1 cp I ' * f c1 ci I ]T ' I xI

102 RAI

is

ON 012r,

(1'IIc1N. ............ 2

- 2 - 3TT ii-1196/2O11/I'i'I

'k11I, cPYkl -(15T P14-Ilul it MD5m # TW T#1 tR 1lI1k PT'f'T

35 M{?1lc1 , 7.5 qfkm iflT t 55 MMM UF 5T Ift f4-IjuI ThT

,4\31-1 1,1~11;Z55 MM,41d '3cIIc1 'RTE cpu ICci cj1c1

TF t 5T N1 cMc. T T 1ET cI

zFT 31CNt wii 1bii TrZ1TI ci1 iciii 1*

T RI 41 Z5T I ITi. TT it

31II {-iicp 25.03.2009 ?T cV1I 3T RPT 1m £1TT 18(1)() * 31! cI' IPiIci 1TT I1 tJ 3YIc1 * 31NT

tR 3Tth.?r. t 'HcPc1I * t 3,46,25,387/— * -iii, ctiii

i - t 1i qi I Zft & ci it rr * iii' ctiIcl

1,60,01,255/ — ti [ 3c-1II0 ITE * ZT IF 4 iI?tici i iFi

6,40,050/— T ci 3i'c pI' ffcT# 1b.ii 11R1[I

fthur &05T * '3'-Ic1 31II 1"iicp 25.03.2009 * c1cH-H 1T ' Lii cci (at ) e-.1), cii 1i R ct, 611 q, I flTJT 3T1FfRTT it qm

82 * 3Tc11c1 2T1 atc Wc,c1 *t ate 3Tq

1u1 1'ijcp 19.10.2010 pT 3T11c'I T 31T'èTR tE *4)cPi' m 'H c ?f- I v-I-Il 1 7FURQTF RT cii P1 Rr.i c

1?t 'icp 13.03.2009) iRci Pu1.i * -i-tti t Ri'&i 4cI \zc'4Ic

"tflcpe' * Pii1ui t vTcm t9T -iI-icp *c11cpi' f

1ZIT *1 3L11I 315T * ftc I'Ici T zrg

3Ttc;r 3T1fkTf ?mTRr 83 *3Tcl4cl Wc1 T

3. 1cP'

- 3 - 34tT #,51i-1196/2011/I1'Ic

4. '

- 4 - 3T1 *qi1196/2011/91'1

3I1Th t[ T?ThE t fcf 9l-I'- 1 3P-)cpd T Commissioner of Central

Excise, Mumbai V/s Ms National Organic Chamicals Civil Appeals No. 1130/2003

fu 1iicp 06.11.2008 iiii4t 3T 'IIIci1 TT CTO(A-E) Sri

Ganganagar V/s Ms. Durgeshwari Food Ltd. Sri Ganganagar S.B. Civil Sel Tax

Revision Petition No. 193-194/2009 P'4LI 1iicp 08.12.2011 !.lIRcl c' '--1

3IT P?1T 9I'-fr4 3T '- IM-1 '3Yctc1 FuI,-i ict 3ITTR tR -Cb7 Tziff

1T[ * 31Id 1 cN-i 1ci* f~TM 'iihll qIL1')F~1c1

6. $WTtTT 0t z9F tR 9 -1 Pb I TMT T21T fT1r &1wrt

7. Wct! VTgQff U4 0 TT I's.1 * Y\içc1 oqciiR

cpJcf q ft 11R '19I, CpL4kl T \YI , PH)c'ii r PH)cn T

* 191uI tq c 9T * t1 Pbi ITZIT t, Ri 4 1flclI

t iqR fi 3T1FET51 TT 31! ci) t.4 3T * ci I -44 ZA 3I't

cpt Tff cPIcP' Lc1 ictc1 7FT, cPYI'd 11R tR

c41 fcfT4 TF1 1-11 4N1 d1 * T1 Pitikul * '4Ic1

srffk?TT Th1 ITT 18(1) * w1i * f f T{ 45

it 191I t11 cp ff;f * Tff tt TffF tcNT ctftt tzj

1cci IT t1 ?N1 TM%t t t 9N1c

ITZ ftzffi c1 tq ZWUr15T 31k"1Y-'I Pbi izii * i

E;.

i1II11k Zft 3)eI1 A '.iiRci P°1i 11ICb 13.03.2009 * Mt)e5 f111 ZA

12.2012 [T 3B1IcP T *cilcPI' i1IcP'< 20 f 21 i Pi ri

"20. In the considered opinion of this Court, therefore, in view of specific provisions contained in Section 18 of the VAT Act of 2003, the ratio of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee would in fact support the case of the Revenue, and as a necessary corollary, it deserves to be held following these aforesaid judgments, that input tax

e11IIc1I' .............5

Is - 5 - 3PE *I'I1-1196/2011/j9I.1llc

credit in the present case, was rightly reduced and was allowed only proportionately to the extent of manufacturing and sale of taxable goods by the assessee in the present case, namely "Aata", "Maida" and "Suji" manufactured out of raw material (Wheat) and such input tax credit could not be allowed to the extent of sale of VAT exempted goods, namely, wheat bran (Chaff/Chokar), which has been assessed by the Assessing Authority to the extent of 25% of the input tax credit and reverse tax has been imposed on the respondent-assessee. 21. Therefore, as far as impugned order of learned Tax Board dated 13.03.2009 to the extent of setting aside the imposition of reverse tax disallowing the proportionate input tax credit is concerned, the same can not be sustained and deserves to be quashed by this Court, and to that extent the revision petitions filed by the petitioner-Revenue deserve to be allowed.

[e

ITT *, r ITT * ctii * f~i7 9t p qft

f ct IJM [ 1 rR1• * —'TM I I * f 1qi1 ZflT 4 3ct1IR0 1I17 * 31,yIc1 31IIc1 qR 5T fl 411ii kzr tM

10. Urof TrcT 1i afiq 31n1 f -t

T 3p 7TU { '4 qFffff fCF4 7T~ *fr14 9i11?-I 31cNl *P± 45T Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai V/s

Ms National Organic Chamicals Civil Appeals No. 1130/2003 frut4 fiICP 06.11.2008 1 -cc1 9I 11t eTT 11I 3fl1T 1T 41I'l'44 I'.1pf 3EI

TIM- 47/2014

1frl44 31Lc cUJ t f3iic [22

'i14ict dI -TTT 26 * 31ii Iimi crit4gj it iq,cIl *1

11. 4cic1I11 1')ei 'c1cpi m W4 5-'Z 3T1)1 5T 3iii fIICP 19.10.2010 31YfF II 'ii1TI * f2IT f1T7 3Tft15T * 31II I1IcP 25.03.2009 It WT4 6,40,050/— q5T

tcm *c)ct*< cl Rci'1 fbi 'ilicil

12. 1U14 TqM lT?ITI