The Madras High Court dismissed appeals filed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise against final orders of the CESTAT. Upholding the Tribunal's view supported by various High Court decisions, the court held that the questions of law should be answered in favor of the assessee.
No order as to costs; consequential C.M.P.Nos. closed.
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.
C.M.A.Nos.2174 to 2176 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
C.M.A.Nos.2174 to 2176 of 2018
The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Formerly known as the Commissioner of Central Excise Puducherry Commissionerate No.1, Beach Road Puducherry – 605 001. ..
.. Appellant in all CMAs
Vs.
M/s.Pulkitt Steel Rolling Mills R.S.No.95/2-3-4. Eripakkam Village Nettapakkam Commune Puducherry – 605 106. .. Respondent in all CMAs
Prayer in C.M.A.No.2174 of 2018: Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w Section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1944, against the final order No.42646/2017 dated 01.11.2017 in Appeal No.E/115/2010 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench;
Prayer in C.M.A.No.2175 of 2018: Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w Section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1944, against the final order No.42647/2017 dated 01.11.2017 in Appeal No.E/116/2010-DB on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench; and
Prayer in C.M.A.No.2176 of 2018: Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w Section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1944, against the final order No.42648/2017 dated 01.11.2017 in Appeal No.E/114/2010-DB on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench.
Page 1 of 4
C.M.A.Nos.2174 to 2176 of 2018
For the Appellant in all CMAs : Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil For the Respondent : Mr.M.A.Mudimannan in all CMAs for Mr.N.Viswanathan
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was authored by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) Heard Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil , learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr.M.A.Mudimannan , learned counsel for the respondent.
2 2013 (297) ELT 166 (Chatt.)
Page 2 of 4
C.M.A.Nos.2174 to 2176 of 2018
view of the three decisions of various High Courts on the same points. Therefore, the issue is fully covered by the said decisions. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said judgment and the questions of law raised in these appeals can also be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.16992 and 16993 of 2018 are closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N, J) 13.11.2024
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
drm
Page 3 of 4
C.M.A.Nos.2174 to 2176 of 2018
R. SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C. SARAVANAN, J.
(drm)
C.M.A.Nos.2174 to 2176 of 2018
13.11.2024
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order confirming the original authority in appeals related to GST/Central Excise.
Whether the views taken by the Tribunal based on precedents are acceptable and correctly applied.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CCE vs. Dee Development EngineersFollowed¶2
CCE vs. Dee Development Engineers 2016 (339) ELT 560 (P&H)
UOI vs. Steel Authority of IndiaFollowed¶2
UOI vs. Steel Authority of India 2013 (297) ELT 166 (Chatt.)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
M/s.Pulkitt Steel Rolling Mills
R.SURESH KUMAR
C.SARAVANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
