Allowed

M/S Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. v. Customs Excise and Service

Madras HC10 Jul 2017CMA/1318/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of five civil miscellaneous appeals filed by sugar and paper companies against the CESTAT. The court held that all framed questions of law were covered by a recent judgment in C.M.A.Nos.3814 of 2011, which answered them in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal were set aside.

M/S Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. Vs Customs Excise and… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

RESERVED ON : 26.04.2017 DELIVERED ON : 10.07.2017

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice RAJIV SHAKDHER and The Honourable Mr.Justice R.SURESH KUMAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.1318 of 2011 and 3641 to 3643 of 2011 and 2069 of 2012 & M.P.Nos.1 of 2011, 1 of 2012 and 1,1 and 1 of 2011 M/s.ThiruArooran Sugars Limited Thirumandakudi, Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District - 612 201 .... Appellant in C.M.A.No.1318 of 2011 M/s.Tamilnadu Newsprints & Paper Ltd. Kagithapuram, Karur - 369 136 .... Appellant in C.M.A.No.3643 of 2011 and 2069 of 2012 M/s.Spac Tapioca Products India Ltd., Poonachi, Bhavani Taluk, Erode - 638 314 .... Appellant in C.M.A.Nos.3641 & 3642/11 Vs 1. Customs, Excise and Service tax Appellate Tribunal, Shastri Bhavan Annex, No.26, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 006. .... 1st Respondent in C.M.A.Nos.1318 of 2011 & 3641 to 3643 of 2011 2. The Commissioner of Central Excise, No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli ....2nd Respondent in C.M.A.Nos.1318 of 2011 and Respondent in CMA 3643/2011 & 2069 of 2012

¶5

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶6

The Commissioner of Central Excise, No.1, Foulks Compound, Anai Medu, Salem - 636 001.

¶7

....2nd Respondent in C.M.A.Nos.3641 to 3643 of 2011

¶8

Prayer : Appeals filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994 against the orders dated 02.12.2010, 09.06.2011, 11.08.2011, 26.08.2011 and 26.03.2012 made in Final Order Nos.1223 of 2010, 642 of 2011, 1016 of 2011, 1031 of 2011 and 306 of 2012 respectively on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.

¶9

For Appellants : Mr.Cynduja Crishnan for M/s.S.Muthu Venkataraman

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas

¶11

These are five (5) appeals, which assail the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, Tribunal).

¶12

1.1. C.M.A.No.1318 of 2011 is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.12.2010, while C.M.A.Nos.3641 to 3643 of 2011 and C.M.A.No.2069 of 2012 are directed against the orders dated 09.06.2011, 11.08.2011, 26.08.2011 and 26.03.2012 respectively.

¶13

C.M.A.No.1318 of 2011 was admitted on 13.06.2011, when, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration by this Court:

¶14

"1. Whether the order of the Tribunal inasmuch

¶15

as it gives effect to the notification No.16/09 prior to 7.7.2009, overlooking the fact that the same is made expressly effective only from the aforesaid date?

¶16

Whether the order of the Tribunal placing reliance on Vandana Global to disallow the claim of CENVAT on M.S.Angles, M.S.Plates, M.S.Channels is

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

unsustainable in view of the fact that it has lost its value as a precedent in view of the contrary view expressed by the Supreme Court in CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR vs. M/s.RAJASTHAN SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD.?

¶19

Whether the respondents are right in disallowing credit on M.S.Angles, M.S.Plates, M.S.Channels on the ground that they do not qualify as capital goods inasmuch as it is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR vs. M/s.RAJASTHAN SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD.?

¶20

Whether M.S.Angles, M.S.Plates, M.S.Channels which are necessary for the construction/erection of plant would of foundation and supporting structure would qualify as Capital Goods?"

¶21

C.M.A.No.2069 of 2012 was admitted on 16.07.2012, when, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration by this Court:

¶22

"1. Whether the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as it gives effect to the notification No.16/09 prior to 7.7.2009, overlooking the fact that the same is made expressly effective only from the aforesaid date?

¶23

Whether the order of the Tribunal placing reliance on Vandana Global to disallow the claim of CENVAT on M.S.Angles, M.S.Joint beams and TOR Steel is unsustainable in view of the fact that it has lost its value as a precedent in view of the contrary view expressed by the Supreme Court in CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR vs. M/s.RAJASTHAN SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD.?

¶24

Whether M.S.Angles, M.S.Joint and beams which are used for positioning and keeping the boiling house equipments in operatable and erect condition would qualify as Capital Goods?"

¶25

C.M.A.Nos.3641 to 3643 of 2011 were admitted on 01.12.2011, when, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration by this Court:

¶26

¶27

Whether the order of the Tribunal placing reliance on Vandana Global to disallow the claim of CENVAT on M.S.Angles, M.S.Joint beams and TOR Steel is unsustainable in view of the fact that it has lost its value as a precedent in view of the contrary view

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

expressed by the Supreme Court in CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR vs. M/s.RAJASTHAN SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD.?

¶30

Whether the respondents are right in disallowing credit on M.S.Angles, M.S.Joint beams and TOR Steel on the ground that they do not qualify as capital goods inasmuch as it is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR vs. M/s.RAJASTHAN SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD.?

¶31

Whether M.S.Angles, M.S. Joint beams and TOR Steel, which are used for positioning and keeping the Boiling House Equipments in operatable and erect condition would qualify as Capital Goods?"

¶32

The captioned appeals were listed for hearing on 26.04.2017, when, the following additional question of law is framed for consideration:

¶33

"Whether the appellant is entitled to input credit in terms of Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 ?"

¶34

The questions of law framed in the captioned appeals, stand covered by a judgment dated 10.07.2017, passed in C.M.A.Nos.3814 of 2011 and 2695 and 2696 of 2012, titled: M/s.Thiruarooran Sugars and another V. CESTAT and another, wherein, the questions of law are answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.

¶35

4.1. Accordingly, following the same, the impugned orders of the Tribunal are set aside.

¶36

The captioned appeals are disposed of in the aforementioned terms. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

¶37

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶38

True Copy

¶39

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶40

¶41

¶42

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Shastri Bhavan Annex No 26, Haddows Road

¶43

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶44

Chennai 600 006.

¶45

The Commissioner of Central No 1, Williams Road, Cantonment Tiruchirapalli

¶46

The Commissioner of Central Excise No 1,Foulks Compound Anaimedu, Salem 636 001.

¶47

The Section Officer

¶48

V.R. Section, High Court, Madras 104.

¶49

+5 Ccs to Mr. Mohammed Shaffiq, Advocate sr 48025 to 48029 +1 CC to Mr.V. Sundareswaran, Advocate sr 47910

¶50

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.1318 of 2011
and 3641 to 3643 of 2011 and 2069 of 2012
& M.P.Nos.1 of 2011, 1 of 2012 and 1,1 and 1 of 2011
SP(29/07/2017)

¶51

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. v. Customs Excise and Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. v. Customs Excise and Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Government of India Vs R. Inbavalli

M/S. Ap Steels Vs the Commissioner Ofcentral

Shri. D.Purshothaman Vs the Commissioner Ofcentral

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Leo Fastners

G.Muthamizh Vs J.Radha Krishnan, IAS

The Commissioner of Central Vs M/S. Jsw Steels Ltd.