The Division Bench dismissed the appeal under the Central Excise Act, 1944, following a Division Bench judgment of this Court and a Supreme Court judgment. No stay was observed.
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
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: 08.06.2017
Coram
The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
and
The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
C.M.A.No.1622 of 2017
The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, 1 Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli - 620 001.
.... Appellant/Respondent Vs.
M/s.Taher Ali Industries and Projects Pvt. Ltd., Thanjavur - Pudukottai Main Road,
No.192, Punalkulam, Kandarvakottai, Pudukottai - 613 007.
.... Respondent/Appellant
APPEAL under Section 35G(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated 14.03.2016 made in Final Order No.40443 of 2016 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. against the order passed by the Commissioner & Excise [Appeals], Tiruchirapalli in order-inAppals No.77/13 dated 30/07/2013 against the order passed by The Superintendent of Central Excise Pudukottai-I Range in order No.2/2013-CE dated 23/04/2013
For Appellant : Ms.R.Hemalatha
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJIV SHAKDHER,J.)
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1.The Registrar,
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Customs & Excise[Appeals]
No.1, Williams Road,
Cantoment, Tiruchirapalli-620 001
3.The Superintendent of Central Excise,
Pudukottai.
+1cc M/s.R.Hemalatha, Advocate in sr.no.41170
C.M.A.No.1622 of 2017
VGII(CO)
NR 23/06/2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be allowed despite pending Special Leave Petitions over the governing judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
A.R.Metallurgicals P. Ltd. V. CESTATFollowed¶17
A.R.Metallurgicals P. Ltd. V. CESTAT, Chennai, 2015 (322) E.L.t.49 (Mad.)
Indsur Global Ltd. V. Union of IndiaReferred¶18
Indsur Global Ltd. V. Union of India, 2014 (310) E.L.T. 833 (Guj.)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
M/s. Taher Ali Industries and Projects Pvt. Ltd.
RAJIV SHAKDHER
R. SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
