Commissioner Of Central Tax-Medchal-GST Customs vs. M/S Dr. Reddys Laboratories LTD.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal-GST, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Medchal Commissionerate (appellant) filed an appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The respondent, M/s. Dr Reddy's Laboratories Ltd., an export-oriented unit, applied for de-bonding on October 14, 2009, providing stock details on October 20, 2009. The final exit order under the de-bonding scheme was issued on April 9, 2010. A letter dated February 11, 2010, from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad, required the assessee to pay various duties. The assessee appealed this direction to the first appellate authority, which dismissed the appeal. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal, which allowed the appeal on March 21, 2019. The appellant is aggrieved by the Tribunal's order.

Held

The Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The Tribunal had taken note of a similar issue concerning de-bonding and discharge of central excise duty on semi-finished and finished goods in stock at the time of the final exit order, specifically in the case of the assessee itself. It was noted that a previous Central Excise Appeal (C.E.A.No.103 of 2015) filed before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, against an order concerning the assessee, was dismissed as infructuous on March 14, 2016. The High Court, in its order dated March 14, 2016, had upheld the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. These prior orders had attained finality. Therefore, based on the principle of finality and the precedent set by the High Court in a similar matter involving the same assessee, the present appeal was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in allowing the respondent-assessee's appeal against the demand for duties on semi-finished and finished goods lying in stock at the time of the final exit order under the de-bonding scheme, contrary to the Board's Circular dated January 5, 2004? (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner (Appellant): The Tribunal's order is contrary to specific instructions in the Board's Circular dated January 5, 2004, and the issue had not attained finality. Respondent (Revenue/State): No arguments were recorded for the respondent.