Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Cgst & Central ... vs M/S. Sakthi Auto Components Ltd on 21 March, 2022
CMA.No.2944 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
C.M.A.No.2944 of 2017
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise,
No.1, Foulks Compound,
Anai Medu,
Salem 636 001. .. Appellant
Versus
M/s. Sakthi Auto Components Ltd.,
Mukasi, Pallagoundenpalayam,
Perundurai 638 056,
Tamilnadu .. Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 83 of Chapter V of the
Finance Act, 1994 r/w Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the
order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,
South Zonal Bench, Chennai in Final Order No.40162 of 2017, dated
30.01.2017 made in Appeal No.E/21/2008-DB.
For Appellant : Mr.V. Sundareswaran,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
CMA.No.2944 of 2017
Senior Panel Counsel
For Respondent : M/s.Jayalakshmi for
Mr.S.Muthu Venkatesan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant /
revenue, questioning the correctness of the order dated 30.01.2017 passed by
the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench,
Chennai in Final Order No.40162 of 2017 in Appeal No.E/21/2008-DB.
2.On 05.10.2017, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was admitted on the
following substantial questions of law:
“(i) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT, Chennai is correct in
allowing the appeal of the assessee regarding the cenvat
credit availed on service tax paid for outward
transportation.
(ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in ignoring the law
that Amendment by way of “Substitution” of words
“clearance of final products upto the place of removal” for
the words “clearance of final products from the place of
removal” by way of Notification No.10/2008-CE (N.T.),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2944 of 2017
dated 01.03.2008 is applicable for the relevant period of
dispute in appeal and consequently the assessee is not
entitled for the outward CENVAT credit.
(iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the
appeal filed by the respondent by following the decision of
the Karnataka High Court in (2011) 44 VST 1 (CCE Vs. ABB
Ltd), when the respondent had not produced any
documentary evidence to show that the sale of goods was
completed only upon the delivery of the goods at the door
steps of the customers.
(iv) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not
appreciating the objects and reasons to find out the objective
for introducing the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 proposed in
the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2004 before interpreting the scheme
of the CENVAT Rules, 2004 as held by the Apex Court in
(2009) 16 SCC 659 (Tata Power Co Vs. Reliance Energy
Limited)
(v) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in ignoring
the fact that when the assessee had not included the cost of
the “outward freight charges” in the “assessable value” as
per the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the
service tax paid on the outward freight charges can be
availed as “input service” under the CENVAT Scheme.
(vi) Whether the Tribunal ignored the ratio laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Bombay
Tyre International reported in (1983) 14 ELT 1896.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2944 of 2017
3.When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned senior
panel counsel appearing for the appellant, referring to the communication of the
Joint Commissioner, O/o. Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax and Central
Excise, Salem, in File No.GEXCOM/ LGL/RPTS/MISC/30/2021-Legal-
O/o.COMMR-CGST-SALEM dated 11.03.2022 addressed to him, in the light
of the Board's instructions in F.No.390/Misc/116/2017-JC dated 22.08.2019,
sought permission of this court to withdraw this appeal on the ground of Low
Tax Effect. He has also filed a memo dated 16.03.2022 enclosing a copy of the
said communication dated 11.03.2022 to that effect.
4.In view of the aforesaid submissions made on the side of the appellant,
this appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit
imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
[R.M.D,J.] [J.S.N.P, J.]
21.03.2022
msr
Index : Yes / No
To
1.The Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai
2.Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise,
No.1, Foulks Compound,
Anai Medu, Salem 636 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2944 of 2017
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
msr
C.M.A.No.2944 of 2017
21.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
