Telangana High Court
The Commissioner, Customs And Central ... vs M/S Koya And Company Construction Pvt. ... on 29 February, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
C.E.A.No.80 OF 2006
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.B.Narayana Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.N.Vijay, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the Revenue assailing the order dated 08.07.2005 in Appeal No.E/1362/2004.
3. The learned CESTAT in the course of passing of the order had set aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise on 27.09.2004, in so far as the assessee is availing the CENVAT credit on the inputs viz., M.S. Sheet / Plates, Cement, Welding flux, wire mesh, welding rods and welding coil.
4. The Tribunal, when the matter is taken up in an appeal was of the view that, the issue raised is already decided in favour of the assessee vide decision of the Division Bench of this High Court itself, in the case of 2 PSK,J & NTR,J C.E.A.No.80 of 2006 M/s. Hetero Labs Ltd. & another vs. CCE 1. Thereafter, the Revenue preferred the instant appeal assailing the order of CESTAT on the following substantial question of law:
1. Whether the CESTAT, Bangalore is justified in set asiding the impugned order of Revenue department without taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 and the Board's Circular No.754/70/2003-CX,dated 09.10.2003?
2. Whether the CESTAT, Bangalore is justified contrary to the CENVAT Credit Rules though the respondent has availed the CENVAT Credit on the exclusive input issued in the exempted product without maintaining separate accounts which is mandatory?
5. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the parties has brought to the notice of the Bench that the question of law framed in the instant appeal had already stands answered by the Division Bench of this High Court itself in a bunch of Central Excise Appeals and the leading of the said bunch of appeal is 1 Final Order No.572-576/2005, dated 07.04.2005. 3
PSK,J & NTR,J C.E.A.No.80 of 2006 C.E.A.No.11 of 2006 and batch, which stood decided on 17.03.2015. The Division Bench of this Court while deciding the batch of Central Excise Appeals took note of the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Escort Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad 2 in C.E.A. No.106 of 2006. The Division Bench also took note of yet another decision in the case of Malviya Chem. & Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of C.Ex., Meerut 3, wherein similar issues were also decided. While dismissing the appeal of the Revenue in terms of the aforesaid two judgments, the High Court had also reserved the right of the appellant Revenue to take appropriate steps in the event if the matter before the Supreme Court where the challenge is to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Escort Limited supra is decided in favour of the Revenue.
6. In view of the fact that this High Court has already in a bunch of appeals of similar nature have decided of 2 2004 (176) ELT 817 3 2001 (127) ELT 274 4 PSK,J & NTR,J C.E.A.No.80 of 2006 identical nature, we are also inclined to take the same view.
7. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands rejected in the light of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court relied supra. However, the right of the Revenue stands reserved to take appropriate steps in the event if the challenge is to the said judgment in the case Escort Limited stands decided in favour of the Revenue which is pending before the Hon'bel Supreme Court.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
____________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J ____________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J Date: 29.02.2024 AQS