Dismissed

The Commissioner v. M/s. Astrix Laboratories Ltd.

Telangana HC5 Oct 2023CEA/3/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Central Excise Appeal No. 3 of 2020, the High Court of Telangana disposed of an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise against an order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding credit availing by the respondent. The court held that since the Tribunal relied on relevant judicial precedents and its own previous decision involving the assessee, no substantial

What did the court decide?

Central Excise Appeal No. 3 of 2020 is rejected. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

The Commissioner Vs M/s. Astrix Laboratories Ltd. — Customs and Excise | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

\r.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETW

¶7

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEALS NO: 3 OF 2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

The Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad - | Commissionera-tg, Kend1iya ShulkBhavan, L.B. Stadium Road, B'asheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004, ( Presently the Commissioner of Central Tax, Cential Excise and Service Tax, Medchal GST Commissionerate, H.No. 11-4-649/8, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad - 500004)

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

M/s. Astrix Laboratories Ltd, lDA, Kazipally, Gaddapotharam Vi age, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak Dist, Telangana - 502325

¶13

.,,RESPONDENT

¶14

Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 RAIV miscellaneous transitional provisions under section^'142 of CGST Acl 2O1l against the final order No. 4,/30537/2019, dated 10.04.2019, on the file of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench, Hyderabad, preferred against the Order-in-Original No. 08/2011-(C.E)-Commr. Dated 21.02.2011 on the file of the Commissioner, Hyderabad-l Commissionerate, Hyderabad.

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant :Mr. A RAMA KRTSHNA REODY (SC FOR CBEC)

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent :Mr. LAKSHMI KUMARAN SRIDHARAN

¶17

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

THE IION'I}LE^{SRI JUSTICEP.SAMKOSHY} ANt)

¶19

THE HON'BLIi^{SRI JUSTICE LAXMT NARAYANAALTSHETTY} C.E.A. No.3^{of 2020}

¶20

.IUDGMtrNT:^{(per Hon'bleSri JusticeP.SAM KOSHY)}

¶21

Ileard Mr.A^{Ran.ra Krishna Ri:ddy, learned Standing Counselfor} the appellant^{and Mr.Lakshmi Kumalan Sridharan'lealncd counsellor} the respondent.^{Perused the rnaterialon record'}

¶22

'ilre present is an appeal tiled against the order passed^{by the} Depaflmenl^{in E.A.No.l345 o12011,'J:cided on 10 04'20t9'}

¶23

3 Vidc the said^{impugned order the Tribunalhad decided on three} separate issucs^{g'hich u'ere liamedand which are reflectedin paragraph} No.S of the^{impugned order itself' Fiowever, the appellantsin the instant} appeal are assailing^{the order only on the issue No i' so far as availing} the credit in^{proportion to the quantity of inputs which wereissuedfor} manufacturing^{of the dutiablegoodsor exempted goods'}

¶24

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner tried to impress upon the Bench} by ref'en ing to^{Rule 6(6) oi the Central ExciseRules' saying that since} there is a^{categorical finding that the appellant failed in rnaint4iiing} separate accounts^{fbr dutiableand exernpted goods' the orderin original}

I t t. ,|i

passed by the Assessing Officer w.as not required to be interfered with by the Tribunal and therefore the appcal is liable to be adrnitted.

¶29

5' However' the perusar of the record wourd show that the Tribunar in the course ofdeciding the appear has reached to a specific finding of the fact that in the case of the assessee itself in a case which is reported in lwotrix Laboratories Lil Vs. CCCE &ST, Hlderabo. _ f,,had accepted the assessee availing the credit in such a manner. What is further reflected is that whire deciding the said case of. rhe assessee in the afbrementioned case' the Tribunar has further taken note of the judicial precedents of the past a similar issue in the case of M/s. IpCA Laboratories Limited Vs. CCE, fndore2, so also in the case of M/s.Commr of C.Ex & Cus, I{yd_I us. GIan, pharmo Ltd and also a decision on the same issus in the case of Food Fats & Ferlitizers Ltd vs, CCE, Gunlura. The leamed counsel for the appellant was not able to show' as regards any of the above referred judgments having been herd to be bad by any Court of Law either by the High Courr or the Supreme Court.

¶30

ra ba d i ,1i ;1i1,L111'.:,:,;i :Hvde " ;3;: [:1:] i i i ;:;,[],:,#i

¶31

'lhorrgir the counsel fbr the appellants submits that f.ew of the Inatters though not li om the judg,ents referred to by the Tribunal, but arising out of' other High Courts are pending in the Supreme Couft. Nonetheless, the lact that the Tribunal in the course of passing the impugned order has taken into account a judgrnent passed in the case of the assessee itself and by the very same Tribunal and moreover the said decision also ha'ing been passecr relying upon the aforesaid Judicial precedents of the various Tribunals and the High Court of Delhi, we do not find any substantiar question of larv made out by the apperants in the instant appeal. Moreover, rve also lind that all the facts and grounds which are being agitated by the appr:llanrs have all been dealt with by the Tribunal and thus becor.ues a lindings of the fact.

¶32