Madras High Court
M/S.Welcord Component Industries vs The Commissioner Of Cgst & Central ... on 10 September, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, C.Saravanan
C.M.A.Nos.2616, 2615 & 2618 of 2025
--------------------------------------------------
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.Nos.2616, 2615 and 2618 of 2025
and
C.M.P.Nos.21974, 21969 and 21986 of 2025
CMA.No.2616 of 2025:
M/s.Welcord Component Industries,
B-8, Pipdic Industrial Estate,
Mettupalayam,
Puducherry – 605 009. ...Appellant
Vs.
The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise,
Pondicherry Commissionerate,
No.1, Goubert Avenue, Beach Road,
Puducherry – 605 001. ...Respondent
CMA.No.2615 of 2025:
Rankit Bhutoria,
Partner,
M/s.Welcord Component Industries,
B-8, Pipdic Industrial Estate,
Mettupalayam,
Puducherry – 605 009. ...Appellant
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 11:32:14 am )
C.M.A.Nos.2616, 2615 & 2618 of 2025
--------------------------------------------------
Vs.
The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise,
Pondicherry Commissionerate,
No.1, Goubert Avenue, Beach Road,
Puducherry – 605 001. ...Respondent
CMA.No.2618 of 2025:
Prasanna Bhutoria,
Managing Partner,
M/s.Welcord Component Industries,
B-8, Pipdic Industrial Estate,
Mettupalayam,
Puducherry – 605 009. ...Appellant
Vs.
The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise,
Pondicherry Commissionerate,
No.1, Goubert Avenue, Beach Road,
Puducherry – 605 001. ...Respondent
PRAYER in CMA.No.2616 of 2025: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 35G of Central Excise Act praying to answer the “substantial
questions of law” in favour of the appellant and consequently allow the present
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals by setting aside the Final Order
No.FO/A/40615/2025-EX(DB) in Appeal E/41167/2017 dated 17.06.2025
passed by the Tribunal.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 11:32:14 am )
C.M.A.Nos.2616, 2615 & 2618 of 2025
--------------------------------------------------
PRAYER in CMA.No.2615 of 2025: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 35G of Central Excise Act praying to answer the “substantial
questions of law” in favour of the appellant and consequently allow the present
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals by setting aside the Final Order
No.FO/A/40617/2025-EX(DB) in Appeal E/41168/2017 dated 17.06.2025
passed by the Tribunal.
PRAYER in CMA.No.2618 of 2025: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 35G of Central Excise Act praying to answer the “substantial
questions of law” in favour of the appellant and consequently allow the present
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals by setting aside the Final Order
No.FO/A/40616/2025-EX(DB) in Appeal E/41166/2017 dated 17.06.2025
passed by the Tribunal.
For Appellant : Mr.M.A.Mudimannan in all CMAs
For Respondent : Mr.G.Meganathan,
Senior Standing Counsel in all CMAs
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been instituted
challenging the orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Chennai dated 17.06.2025 made in Final Order No.FO/A/40615/2025-
EX(DB) in Appeal E/41167/2017, FO/A/40617/2025-EX(DB) in Appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 11:32:14 am )
C.M.A.Nos.2616, 2615 & 2618 of 2025
--------------------------------------------------
E/41168/2017 and FO/A/40616/2025-EX(DB) in Appeal E/41166/2017.
2. Regarding the substantial questions of law to be raised in the present
appeals, the learned counsel for the appellant would draw the attention of this
Court to the findings in paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 17 of the order of the
appellate Tribunal, in which the appellant would contend that the case of the
appellant had been accepted by the Tribunal and therefore, there is no reason to
remit the matter back to the Authority for a fresh adjudication.
3. We have carefully gone through the paragraphs relied on behalf of the
appellant and paragraph No.17 of the order would be relevant, which reads as
under:
17. On overall analysis, we find that the mahazar was
drawn on 08.12.2014 and the witnesses have voluntarily
travelled from Madipakkam and Padi, Chennai all the way to
Mettupalayam, Pondicherry only to participate and witness the
mahazar proceedings. Annexure (A) is the inventory of physical
stock of finished/ semi-finished goods/ raw materials,
consumables and machinery at the premises of the Appellant-
firm. The condition of the above machinery as to whether they
were in working condition or not is not clearly forthcoming as,
apparently, none of the team members or even any of the
witnesses is an expert to certify to that effect. The reference as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 11:32:14 am )
C.M.A.Nos.2616, 2615 & 2618 of 2025
--------------------------------------------------
“Unused/ Dilapidated” does not lead us anywhere and hence,
the investigation, according to us, is only a half-hearted attempt
by the D.R.I. Hence, we are of the view that the investigating
team should have atleast obtained opinion of an expert in this
regard since the Revenue is only denying the manufacturing
facility of the Appellant-firm. Unfortunately, other than the
physical stock there is no other documentary evidence to accept
the Revenue's contention and hence, the allegation of the
Revenue stands disproved. Appellant has equal responsibility
here, hence, it should also place all such records of earlier
years/ periods relating to the visits and observations of the
Excise Department.
4. In view of the above finding arrived at by the Tribunal, it necessitated
for the Tribunal to remit the matter back for fresh adjudication, in order to give
quietus to the issues raised between the parties. When the factual adjudications,
examination of witnesses, expert opinion are not completely done in the present
case, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the decision taken by the
appellate Tribunal to remit the matter back to the adjudicating Authority for a
fresh consideration. No substantial question of law has been raised, more so,
the factual adjudication still remains incomplete.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to
entertain the present appeals and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 11:32:14 am )
C.M.A.Nos.2616, 2615 & 2618 of 2025
--------------------------------------------------
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.M.S., J.) (C.S.N., J.)
10.09.2025
dsa
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 11:32:14 am )
C.M.A.Nos.2616, 2615 & 2618 of 2025
--------------------------------------------------
To:
The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise,
Pondicherry Commissionerate,
No.1, Goubert Avenue, Beach Road,
Puducherry – 605 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 11:32:14 am )
C.M.A.Nos.2616, 2615 & 2618 of 2025
--------------------------------------------------
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
dsa
C.M.A.Nos.2616, 2615 and 2618 of 2025
10.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 11:32:14 am )
