Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the CESTAT order regarding Central Excise duty recovery. The appellant department instructed withdrawal of the appeal due to instructions received from higher authorities. The court dismissed the appeal leaving substantive questions open.
Appeal dismissed; substantial questions of law left open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.06.2016
C O R A M :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.28 of 2011
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax No.1, Williams Road, Contonment Tiruchirapalli – 620 001.
... Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
M/s. Madras Cements Limited Alathiyur Works Cement Nagar Post Senthurai Taluk Perambalur District – 621 730.
... Respondent/Applicant
Prayer : Appeal filed under Section 35 G of Central Excise Act against the final order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai dated 23.06.2010 in Final Order No.693 of 2010 and restoring the orders of the Lower Authority, against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Trichy dated 18.08.2009 made in A.No.86 of 2008 against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Thanjavur, dated 31.01.2008 made in C.No.V/Ch.25/15/46/2007-Cx.Adj.
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.Manikumar,J)
This Appeal has been filed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai dated 23.06.2010 in No.693 of 2010 with a prayer to restore the orders of the Lower Authority.
“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the restriction contained in Rule 9(1)(b) of the CCR was not attracted against the assessees so as to sustain the duty under the pretext that the additional amount of duty became recoverable from the supplier manufacturer only subsequent to the taking of credit by the assessees on the strength of three supplementary invoices ?
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
avr
To
1.The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Williams Road, Contonment, Trichy 620 001.
2.The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Shastri Bhavan, 1st Floor, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai 06. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Excise Division, Thanjavur.
+1cc to Mrs.R.K.Sekina Reshma, Advocate, S.R.No.32067
C.M.A. No.28 of 2011
GJ II(CO) CA(04/07/2016)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Rule 9(1)(b) of the CCR was attracted to sustain duty because additional duty became recoverable only after the assessee took credit on supplementary invoices.
Whether supplementary invoices on which credit was taken could be considered eligible documents when the additional duty demand against the manufacturer was confirmed after the credit was taken.
Whether the Tribunal's order is legal and correct in the absence of a statutory provision to support it.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax No.1
M/s. Madras Cements Limited
S.Manikumar
D.Krishnakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
