M/S. Sree Kaderi Ambal Steels LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's representation, seeking redetermination of duty for the period from 01.04.1998 to March 2000 based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, should be considered. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation in light of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment. The reasoning was that the petitioner, being a steel manufacturing unit, claimed to be covered by the Supreme Court's decision. The ratio decidendi is that representations seeking redetermination of duty based on a binding Supreme Court precedent must be considered by the tax authorities. The operative direction was to dispose of the representation within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

M/s. Sree Kaderi Ambal Steels Limited, a steel manufacturing unit, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise to dispose of its representation dated March 8, 2023. The petitioner sought redetermination of duty for the period from April 1, 1998, to March 2000. This redetermination was requested based on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015 (326) E.L.T.209 (S.C.)). The petitioner contended that it is covered by the said Supreme Court judgment and therefore its duty should be redetermined accordingly. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner, Superintendent, and Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for redetermination of duty for the period from 01.04.1998 to March 2000 based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2015 (326) E.L.T.209 (S.C.)? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that it is a steel manufacturing unit and is covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the respondents should consider and redetermine its duty liability based on this precedent. Respondents' arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents regarding the petitioner's claim for redetermination or their obligation to consider the Supreme Court's judgment. The respondents' role was to respond to the writ petition seeking a direction for disposal of the representation.