Dismissed

M/S.Sri Krishna Alloys v. Union of India

Madras HC13 Nov 2017WP/25919/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The court held that while the petitioner sought a declaration of invalidity, an existing Supreme Court decision in a related matter confirmed the lower tribunal's decision in the petitioner's favor. Thus, the respondent was directed to abide by that decision, and the writ petition was dismiss

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The respondent is directed to abide by the decision and direction issued by the CESTAT confirmed by the Supreme Court in a related civil appeal.

M/S.Sri Krishna Alloys Vs Union of India — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.11.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.25919 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008

¶6

M/s.Sri Krishna Alloys, Rep. by its Partner: N.Anbalagan, No.262/1B-3, Manjakkalpatty, Akkammapet Post, Sankari, Salem District. .. Petitioner ..Vs..

¶7

1.Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2.The Commissioner of Central Excise, No.1, Foulk's Road, Annai Medu, Salem.

¶8

3.The Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, No.1, Foulk's Road, Annai Medu, Salem. .. Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Goods) Rules, 2000 as notified under Notification No.45/2000-CE(NT) ultra vires Sect.4(1)(b) and Sec.37(2)((i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and unenforceable as ultra vires Art.14 and 19(1)(g) and Art.265 of the Constitution of India, in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.A.Mudimannan for Mr.K.Jayachandran For Respondents: Mr.K.Magesh Senior Panel Counsel

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Heard Mr.M.A.Mudimannan, learned counsel for Mr.K.Jayachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Magesh, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶13

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

¶14

2.The petitioner seeks for declaring Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Goods) Rules, 2000 as notified under Notification No.45/2000-CE(NT) ultra vires Sec.4(1)(b) and Sec.37(2)((i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and unenforceable as ultra vires Art.14 and 19(1)(g) and Art.265 of the Constitution of India, in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶15

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that the validity of the Rule has been upheld and in this regard, reference was made to the decision in the case of Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore-III reported in 2009 (245) ELT 126 (MAd). Therefore, the writ petition has to be dismissed.

¶16

4.In the light of the fact that in the assessee's own case in Civil Appeal Diary No.29432/2015 dated 05.10.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and confirmed the order passed by the CESTAT in E/403 to 406/2005 dated 22.12.2014 wherein the CESTAT has allowed the appeals filed by the petitioner/assessee, the respondent is directed to abide the decision and direction issued by the CESTAT.

¶17

5.The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. /sd/Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2.The Commissioner of Central Excise, No.1, Foulk's Road, Annai Medu, Salem.

¶18

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

¶19

3.The Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, No.1, Foulk's Road, Annai Medu, Salem.

¶20