Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Central Excise ... vs M/S. The India Cements Ltd on 23 September, 2021
C.M.A.No.2243 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
C.M.A.No.2243 of 2012
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax,
No.1, Williams Road, Contonment,
Tiruchirappalli – 620 001. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.M/s. The India Cements Ltd.,
Dalavoi Works, Cement Nagar Post,
Senthurai Taluk – PIN-621 730.
2.Customs, Excise and Service Tax,
Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench,
Shastri Bhavan Annexure,
No.26, Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 35G(2) of Central
Excise Act, 1944, against Final order No. 859 of 2011 dated 27.07.2011 (out
of the Common Final Order No.859-976 of 2011, on the file of the Customs
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai.
Page 1/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2243 of 2012
For Appellant : Mrs.R.Hemalatha
Senior Standing Counsel
For R1 : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
This appeal filed by Revenue under Section 35G(2) of Central Excise
Act, 1944 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the Final order No. 859 of
2011, dated 27.07.2011, on the file of the Customs Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai.
2.The appeal has been admitted on 08.10.2012 on the following
Substantial Questions of Law :
“1.Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Madras in the Final Order
No.859-976 of 2011 dated 27.07.2011 (Final Order Nos.859,
864, 889 and 893 of 2011 dated 27.07.2011 in these cases)
was right in relying upon the decision of the Karnataka High
Court
Page 2/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2243 of 2012
in CCE & ST, LTU, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd [2011 (23) STR 97
(Kar.)] holding that transportation charges incurred by the
manufacturer for clearance of final product from place of
removal, up to 01.04.2008 were included in the definition of
“input service”, especially in respect of the respondent?
2.Whether in view of the varying interpretation of the
term 'ínput service' in various decisions, the CESTAT, Chennai
was right interpreting the term in the manner as in the
order?”
3.We have heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel
appearing for the appellant. Though, the 1st respondent have been served and
their name is printed in the cause list, none appeared for the 1st respondent.
4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted a
letter to the Registry stating that this appeal may be permitted to be
withdrawn on the ground of Low Tax Effect, as per the monetary limits fixed
by the National Litigation Policy.
5.The letter circulated by the learned Senior Standing Counsel is
Page 3/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2243 of 2012
placed on the record and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed as
withdrawn. Consequently, the Substantial Questions of law are left open. No
costs.
(T.S.S., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
23.09.2021
(1/2)
jeni/mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
To
1.The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,
South Zonal Bench,
Chennai.
2.The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,
South Zonal Bench,
Shastri Bhavan Annexure,
No.26, Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
Page 4/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2243 of 2012
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
jeni/mkn
C.M.A.No.2243 of 2012
23.09.2021
(1/2)
Page 5/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
