The Commisioner Of Gst & v. M/S. Pulkitt Steel Rolling
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.11.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Formerly known as the Commissioner of Central Excise Puducherry Commissionerate No.1, Beach Road Puducherry - 605 001.
..
Appellant in all CMAs Vs.
M/s.Pulkitt Steel Rolling Mills R.S.No.95/2-3-4. Eripakkam Village Nettapakkam Commune Puducherry - 605 106.
..
Respondent in all CMAs Prayer in C.M.A.No.2174 of 2018: Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w Section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1944, against the final order No.42646/2017 dated 01.11.2017 in Appeal No.E/115/2010 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench; Prayer in C.M.A.No.2175 of 2018: Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w Section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1944, against the final order No.42647/2017 dated 01.11.2017 in Appeal No.E/116/2010-DB on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench; and Prayer in C.M.A.No.2176 of 2018: Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w Section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1944, against the final order No.42648/2017 dated 01.11.2017 in Appeal No.E/114/2010-DB on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench.
For the Appellant in all CMAs :
Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil For the Respondent :
Mr.M.A.Mudimannan in all CMAs for Mr.N.Viswanathan COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was authored by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) Heard Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.A.Mudimannan, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. We have gone through the impugned common order passed by the CESTAT dated 01.11.2017, where the Tribunal, after having followed the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE vs. Dee Development Engineers1 and also the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of UOI vs. Steel Authority of India2 and also a decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Sujana Metals Products Ltd., which stood confirmed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 2016 (342) ELT A115(AP), rejected the appeals filed by the appellant Revenue, by confirming the order passed by the original authority. 1 2016 (339) ELT 560 (P&H) 2 2013 (297) ELT 166 (Chatt.)
3. The said view taken by the Tribunal has to be accepted in view of the three decisions of various High Courts on the same points. Therefore, the issue is fully covered by the said decisions. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said judgment and the questions of law raised in these appeals can also be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
4. Resultantly, these appeals stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.16992 and 16993 of 2018 are closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N, J) 13.11.2024 drm
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND C. SARAVANAN , J.
(drm) 13.11.2024