Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Gst & Central Excise vs M/S. Flextronics Technologies India ... on 6 November, 2024
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R. Suresh Kumar, C. Saravanan
C.M.A.No.2959 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
C.M.A.No.2959 of 2018
The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Chennai South Commissionerate
MHU Complex, No.692, Anna Salai
Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Flextronics Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, RMZ Millennia Business Park
No.143, Dr. MGR Road, Kandanchavadi
Taramani, Chennai
Tamil Nadu – 600 096. ..
Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act
r/w Section 83 of Finance Act, 1944, to set aside the final order
No.40774 of 2018 dated 16.03.2018 in Appeal No. ST/346/2012 DB
passed by the CESTAT.
For the Appellant : Mr.Su.Srinivasan
For the Respondent : Ms.J.Krithika
and Mr.M.V.Vishal Sundar
for M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran
and Sridharan Attorney
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 4
C.M.A.No.2959 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was authored by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This appeal had been admitted on 12.12.2018 on the
following substantial questions of law:-
“i. Whether the respondent is entitled for refund
of the CENVAT credit on services rendered during
the unregistered period?
ii. Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing
refund of CENVAT credit, which is barred by
limitation? And
iii. Whether the Tribunal was correct in not
considering the safeguards, conditions and
limitations as stipulated in the Appendix to
Notification No.5/2006 CE(NT) dated
14.03.2006?”
2. In fact, the issues that have been raised in this appeal,
i.e., whether availing the CENVAT credit by the respondent
assessee in the current circumstances is justifiable or not, has to
be gone into by taking note of the judgments which have already
been rendered by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in
the earlier occasions.
3. The Tribunal's order, confirming the order of the
Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the case of the assessee, if gone
through based on the said facts, the issues have been already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been decided by the Coordinate Division Bench judgments in the
case of Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Chennai vs. CESTAT,
Chennai1, followed by the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax – III,
Chennai vs. Reed Elsevier Pvt. Ltd.2.
4. Since at least in two such Division Bench judgments, the
issues have been consistently decided in favour of the assessee,
we, by respectfully following the same, are inclined to answer the
questions of law framed in this instant appeal in favour of the
assessee and against the Revenue.
5. Resultantly, the appeal fails, hence, the same stands
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
C.M.P.No.266 of 2022 is closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N, J)
06.11.2024
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
drm
1 2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 45 (Mad.)
2 2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 355 (Mad.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
C. SARAVANAN, J.
(drm)
06.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
