The Commissioner vs. M/S. Astrix Laboratories LTD

Held

The Court held that there was no substantial question of law to be made out in the appeal. The Tribunal, in its impugned order, had taken into account a judgment passed in the case of the assessee (Respondent) itself by the very same Tribunal. Furthermore, that decision had relied upon judicial precedents from various Tribunals and the High Court of Delhi. The Court noted that the Appellant's counsel could not show that any of these referred judgments were held to be bad by any Court of Law, either the High Court or the Supreme Court. The Court also found that all facts and grounds agitated by the Appellant had been dealt with by the Tribunal, thus becoming findings of fact. Consequently, the appeal was rejected.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad (Appellant) filed an appeal against an order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT's order, dated April 10, 2019, had decided three issues. The Appellant is challenging only the first issue, which pertains to the availing of credit in proportion to the quantity of inputs used for manufacturing dutiable or exempted goods. The Appellant argued that since the respondent, M/s. Astrix Laboratories Ltd (Respondent), failed to maintain separate accounts for dutiable and exempted goods, the original order passed by the Commissioner should not have been interfered with by the Tribunal. The Respondent had previously availed credit in a similar manner, which was accepted by the Tribunal in an earlier case involving the Respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the CESTAT was justified in interfering with the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner, despite the Respondent's failure to maintain separate accounts for dutiable and exempted goods, as per Rule 6(6) of the Central Excise Rules? The Appellant argued that the Respondent's failure to maintain separate accounts mandated that the Commissioner's original order should not have been altered by the Tribunal, and therefore, the appeal should be admitted. The Respondent contended that the Tribunal, in a previous case involving the Respondent itself, had accepted the availing of credit in such a manner. This decision was based on judicial precedents from cases like M/s. IpCA Laboratories Limited Vs. CCE, Indore, M/s. Commr of C.Ex & Cus, Hyd Vs. Glan pharma Ltd, and Food Fats & Fertilizers Ltd vs. CCE, Guntur. The Appellant was unable to demonstrate that these judgments were overturned by any higher court.