The Commissioner vs M/S. Astrix Laboratories Ltd
2023 Latest Caselaw 2897 Tel

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
                                  AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
                          C.E.A. No. 3 of 2020
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
      Heard Mr.A Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

the appellant and Mr.Lakshmi Kumaran Sridharan, learned counsel for

the respondent. Perused the material on record.

2. The present is an appeal filed against the order passed by the

Department in E.A.No.1345 of 2011, decided on 10.04.2019.

3. Vide the said impugned order, the Tribunal had decided on three

separate issues which were framed and which are reflected in paragraph

No.8 of the impugned order itself. However, the appellants in the instant

appeal are assailing the order only on the issue No.1, so far as availing

the credit in proportion to the quantity of inputs which were issued for

manufacturing of the dutiable goods or exempted goods.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon the Bench

by referring to Rule 6(6) of the Central Excise Rules, saying that since

there is a categorical finding that the appellant failed in maintaining

separate accounts for dutiable and exempted goods, the order in original

passed by the Assessing Officer was not required to be interfered with by

the Tribunal and therefore the appeal is liable to be admitted.

5. However, the perusal of the record would show that the Tribunal in

the course of deciding the appeal has reached to a specific finding of the

fact that in the case of the assessee itself in a case which is reported in

Matrix Laboratories Ltd Vs. CCCE &ST, Hyderabad - I 1, had accepted

the assessee availing the credit in such a manner. What is further

reflected is that while deciding the said case of the assessee in the

aforementioned case, the Tribunal has further taken note of the judicial

precedents of the past a similar issue in the case of M/s. IPCA

Laboratories Limited Vs. CCE, Indore 2, so also in the case of

M/s.Commr of C.Ex & Cus, Hyd-I Vs. Gland Pharma Ltd 3 and also a

decision on the same issue in the case of Food Fats & Fertilizers Ltd vs.

CCE, Guntur 4. The learned counsel for the appellant was not able to

show, as regards any of the above referred judgments having been held to

be bad by any Court of Law either by the High Court or the Supreme

Court.

2018(8) TMI 1440-CESTAT Hyderabad

2015-TIOL-1097_CESTAT-DEL

2016 (343) E.L.T. 502(Tri-bang)

2009 (247) E.L.T.209(Tri-Bang.)

6. Though the counsel for the appellants submits that few of the

matters though not from the judgments referred to by the Tribunal, but

arising out of other High Courts are pending in the Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, the fact that the Tribunal in the course of passing the

impugned order has taken into account a judgment passed in the case of

the assessee itself and by the very same Tribunal and moreover the said

decision also having been passed relying upon the aforesaid Judicial

precedents of the various Tribunals and the High Court of Delhi, we do

not find any substantial question of law made out by the appellants in the

instant appeal. Moreover, we also find that all the facts and grounds

which are being agitated by the appellants have all been dealt with by the

Tribunal and thus becomes a findings of the fact.

7. Accordingly, the Central Excise Appeal is rejected. No costs.

8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

_________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J 05.10.2023 Aqs/sa

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

C.E.A. No. 3 of 2020 (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)

05.10.2023

Aqs/sa