The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeals as withdrawn by the appellant after counsel sent a written communication seeking withdrawal. The substantial question of law was left open.
Appeals dismissed as withdrawn; no costs awarded.
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 : 09.8.2021
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.641 & 642 of 2015 and MP.Nos.1 and 1 of 2015
M/s.Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd., Pesticides Division, Ranipet, Vellore-630 240.
... Appellant in both CMA
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III Commissionerate, No.26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 ... Respondent in both CMA
APPEALS under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act against common final order Nos.40207 and 40208 of 2014 dated 05.3.2014 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai.
Preferred against the common order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai-34 dated 26.10.2005 made in A.No.48&49/2005 (M-III) preferred against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranipet Division, Ranipet dated 27.01.2005 in C.No.IV/10/02/2004-RF and C.No.IV/10/03/2004-RF.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Magesh
For Respondent : Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J)
We have heard Mr.K.Magesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.
“Whether the order of the Tribunal is right in rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant by simply following the Larger Bench decision in the case of Excel Rubber Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad in (2011) 268 ELT 419 (Tri-LB), which is inapplicable to the case on hand, as there has been a double adjustment in the present appeals?”
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
RS
To
4.The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranipet Division, Chennai III Commissionerate, Ranipet.
+1cc to Mr.S.Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate SR No.39191
CMA.Nos.641 & 642 of 2015 and MP.Nos.1 and 1 of 2015
PM (CO) PR (23/08/2021)
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Excel Rubber Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, HyderabadReferred¶21
(2011) 268 ELT 419 (Tri-LB)
M/s.Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd., Pesticides Division, Ranipet
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III Commissionerate
T.S.SIVAGNANAM
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
