Telangana High Court
The Commissioner, Customs And Central ... vs M/S Koya And Company Construction Pvt. ... on 29 February, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
C.E.A.No.80 OF 2006
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
Heard Mr.B.Narayana Reddy, learned Counsel for the
appellant and Mr.N.Vijay, learned counsel for the
respondent. Perused the material available on record.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the Revenue
assailing the order dated 08.07.2005 in Appeal
No.E/1362/2004.
3. The learned CESTAT in the course of passing of the
order had set aside the order of the Commissioner of
Central Excise on 27.09.2004, in so far as the assessee is
availing the CENVAT credit on the inputs viz., M.S. Sheet /
Plates, Cement, Welding flux, wire mesh, welding rods and
welding coil.
4. The Tribunal, when the matter is taken up in an
appeal was of the view that, the issue raised is already
decided in favour of the assessee vide decision of the
Division Bench of this High Court itself, in the case of
PSK,J & NTR,J
M/s. Hetero Labs Ltd. & another vs. CCE 1. Thereafter,
the Revenue preferred the instant appeal assailing the
order of CESTAT on the following substantial question of
law:
1. Whether the CESTAT, Bangalore is justified
in set asiding the impugned order of Revenue
department without taking into consideration
the provisions of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit
Rules, 2001 and the Board's Circular
No.754/70/2003-CX,dated 09.10.2003?
2. Whether the CESTAT, Bangalore is justified
contrary to the CENVAT Credit Rules though
the respondent has availed the CENVAT
Credit on the exclusive input issued in the
exempted product without maintaining
separate accounts which is mandatory?
5. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the
learned counsel for the parties has brought to the notice of
the Bench that the question of law framed in the instant
appeal had already stands answered by the Division Bench
of this High Court itself in a bunch of Central Excise
Appeals and the leading of the said bunch of appeal is
Final Order No.572-576/2005, dated 07.04.2005.
PSK,J & NTR,J
C.E.A.No.11 of 2006 and batch, which stood decided on
17.03.2015. The Division Bench of this Court while
deciding the batch of Central Excise Appeals took note of
the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in
the case of Escort Limited vs. Commissioner of Central
Excise, Faridabad 2 in C.E.A. No.106 of 2006. The
Division Bench also took note of yet another decision in the
case of Malviya Chem. & Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs.
Commr. Of C.Ex., Meerut 3, wherein similar issues were
also decided. While dismissing the appeal of the Revenue in
terms of the aforesaid two judgments, the High Court had
also reserved the right of the appellant Revenue to take
appropriate steps in the event if the matter before the
Supreme Court where the challenge is to the judgment of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Escort
Limited supra is decided in favour of the Revenue.
6. In view of the fact that this High Court has already in
a bunch of appeals of similar nature have decided of
2004 (176) ELT 817
2001 (127) ELT 274
PSK,J & NTR,J
identical nature, we are also inclined to take the same
view.
7. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands rejected in the
light of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court relied supra. However, the right of the Revenue
stands reserved to take appropriate steps in the event if the
challenge is to the said judgment in the case Escort
Limited stands decided in favour of the Revenue which is
pending before the Hon'bel Supreme Court.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if
any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
____________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
____________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 29.02.2024
AQS
