Commissioner Central Goods Service Tax And Central Excise vs. Ms Amul Crank Case Private Limited
Held
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. The Court was satisfied that the CESTAT, Kolkata, had rightly decided the appeal. This decision was based on the CESTAT's application of the judgment of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV Commissionerate v. Kyungshin Industrial Motherson Ltd., 2016 (332) ELT 69 (Mad.) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi, 2004 (171) ELT 145 (S.C.). The reasoning implies that the CESTAT's interpretation and application of these precedents were found to be correct by the High Court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Commissioner was dismissed. No specific operative directions were issued as the appeal was dismissed on the ground of no substantial question of law.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central Goods Service Tax & Central Excise, Jamshedpur (appellant) has filed an appeal against an order passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata. The CESTAT had decided Excise Appeal No. 365 of 2010 in favour of M/s Amul Crank Case Private Limited (respondent). The appellant is aggrieved by this decision of the CESTAT. The judgment does not specify the tax period or the amount in dispute. The procedural history leading to the CESTAT's order is not detailed in the provided text.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CESTAT, Kolkata, erred in its decision in Excise Appeal No. 365 of 2010, thereby giving rise to a substantial question of law for consideration by this Court? The appellant, represented by its counsel, contended that the CESTAT's decision was incorrect. The appellant relied on the judgments of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV Commissionerate v. Kyungshin Industrial Motherson Ltd., 2016 (332) ELT 69 (Mad.) and the Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi, 2004 (171) ELT 145 (S.C.). The respondent's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment, but it can be inferred that they supported the CESTAT's decision.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Tax Appeal No. 5 of 2022 Commissioner, Central Goods Service Tax & Central Excise (previously Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax), Jamshedpur, having its office at (previous address 143 New Baradwari, Sakchi, P.O & P.S – Sakchi Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum) at present having its Office at GST Bhawan, Outer Circle Road, P.O & P.S- Bistupur, Jamshedpur – 831001, Singhbhum East. ... ... Appellant
Versus M/s Amul Crank Case Private Limited, (M/s V.B. Seth & Co.) having its Office Near Moti Tank, Dr. Radhakrishna Road, Rajkot, P.O & P.S- Rajkot, Gujarat – 360001. ... Respondent
--------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
--------- For the Appellant : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Sr. S.C. Mr. Anurag Vijay, Jr. S.C. Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Srijan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Chowdhary, Advocate.
Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate.
--------- 07/Dated: 13.02.2025
Heard learned counsel for both sides and
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.