Bombay High Court
The Commissioner Of Cgst And Central ... vs Tenormac Enterprises Pvt Ltd on 24 September, 2025
Author: B.P. Colabawalla
Bench: B.P. Colabawalla
2025:BHC-OS:16399-DB
26.cexa.11.25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2025
The Commissioner of CGST & Central
Excise, Navi Mumbai .. Appellant
Versus
Tenormac Enterprises Pvt Ltd,
Navi Mumbai .. Respondent
Mr.Mataprasad Sharma, with Niyati Mankad, Priyanka Singh,
Advocates for the Appellants.
Mr. Prakash D. Shah, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Jas Sanghavi,
Mihir Mehta i/b PDS Legal, Advocates for the Respondent.
Digitally
signed by
ANJALI ANJALI
TUSHAR
ASWALE
TUSHAR
ASWALE
Date:
2025.09.26
12:52:43
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
+0530
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2025
P. C.
1. The above Appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of CGST &
Central Excise Belapur Commissionerate taking exception to the order
passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
("CESTAT") dated 7th July 2023. By this order, CESTAT held that the pre-
deposit made by the Appellants from the electronic credit ledgers are in
compliance to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act and the registration of
the Appeals made by the CESTAT Registry is valid. The CESTAT, therefore,
admitted the Appeals for hearing.
SEPTEMBER 24, 2025
Aswale
26.cexa.11.25.doc
2. According to the Appellant-Revenue, the order of the CESTAT
gives rise to the following substantial questions of law:-
(i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the
CESTAT has erred in holding that the pre-deposit made by the
appellants from electronic credit ledgers are in compliance with
Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 despite the fact that
the CBIC has issued Circular No. 1070/3/2019/-CX dated
24.06.2019 and Instruction No. CBIC-240137/14/2022- Service
Tax Section-CBEC dated 28.10.2022 specifically clarifying
about payment of central excise and service tax and making pre-
deposit after introduction of GST?
(ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case CESTAT
has erred in interpreting the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore Vs
Mysore Electrical 2006 (204) ELT 517 (SC) and by holding that
a beneficial circular has to be applied retrospectively while an
oppressive circular has to be applied prospectively?
(iii)Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case CESTAT
has erred by not considering the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3752 OF 2023
in case of SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF
SANSKRIT & ORS vs DR. MANU & ANR. (SC) dated 16.05.2023
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided that "If a statute
is curative or merely clarificatory of the previous law,
retrospective operation thereof may be permitted"?
3. We find that the questions of law as raised in the above Appeal
are squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of the
SEPTEMBER 24, 2025
Aswale
26.cexa.11.25.doc
Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur v/s Sapphire
Cable and Services Pvt Ltd reported in 2024(8) TMI 1403-
Bombay High Court. In fact, what was challenged in this Appeal was the
very same order which is the subject matter of the present Appeal. This
Court, in paragraph 4, held that the order passed by the CESTAT correctly
concluded that the Appeals filed by the Respondent herein before the
CESTAT were validly instituted because the Circular dated 28 th October 2022
relied upon by the Appellant/Revenue was subsequent in point of time to the
Appeal filed by the Respondent before the CESTAT and the said Circular
would operate only prospectively. Accordingly, the Appeal of the Revenue in
the case of Sapphire Cable and Services Pvt Ltd (supra) was dismissed.
4. Considering these facts and circumstances, we are of the view
that the present Appeal also does not warrant entertainment by this Court.
We say this because, as mentioned earlier, the very same order that is
challenged in the present Appeal, was the subject matter of the Appeal in the
case of Sapphire Cable and Services Pvt Ltd (supra). This apart, we find
that under the provisions of the GST Act as well, this Court has consistently
taken a view that for the purposes of entertaining the Appeal and making a
pre-deposit, the Appellant can always utilize the electronic credit ledgers to
comply with the said condition. This view has been taken in the case of
SEPTEMBER 24, 2025
Aswale
26.cexa.11.25.doc
Oasis Realty v/s Union of India reported in 2023 (3) Centax 86
(Bom) as well as in the case of Navnit Motors Pvt Ltd v/s
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals-III), Mumbai &
Anr (Writ Petition No.2345 of 2025 decided on 14th July 2025).
5. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any error in the
impugned order passed by the CESTAT, and hence does not give rise to any
substantial question of law.
6. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
7. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/
Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax
or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
SEPTEMBER 24, 2025
Aswale
