Karnataka High Court
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd on 25 September, 2014
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy, B.Manohar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
CEA NO.100005/2014
C/W
CEA Nos.100002, 100003,
100004, 100006, 100007 of 2014
IN CEA NO.100005/2014:
BETWEEN
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,
CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX,
NO. 71, CLUB ROAD,
BELGAUM-590 001.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S N RAJENDRA, ADV.)
AND
ULTRA-TECH CEMENT LTD.,
UNIT M/S. RAJSHREE CEMENT WORKS,
MALKHED, DIST: GULBARGA. ... RESPONDENT
THIS CEA IS FILED U/SEC.35 G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE
ACT, 1944, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTITAL
QUESTION OF LAW AND DECIDE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD:03.12.2013 MADE IN MISC.ORDER NO.28006/2013 IN
E/MIS/27586/2013 IN E/605/2012-SM ON THE FILE OF THE
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH
ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B.
2
IN CEA No.100002/2014:
BETWEEN
COMMSSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX,
NO. 71, CLUB ROAD,
BELGAUM-590 001. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S N RAJENDRA, ADV.)
AND
M/S.DODDANAVAR BROTHER,
EOU DIVISION HIREMAGI TAMTAL POST,
TQ: AMINGAD, DIST: HUNGUND. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR & SRI. CHANDRA KUMAR, ADVOCATES)
THIS CEA IS FILED U/SEC.35 G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE
ACT, 1944, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTITAL
QUESTION OF LAW AND DECIDE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD:01.08.2013 MADE IN MISC.ORDER NO.26806-
807/2013 ON APPLICATION NO.ST/MISC/27582 & 27583/2013 IN
APPEAL NO.ST/944 & 945/2009 ON THE FILE OF CUSTOMS,
EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL
BENCH, BANGALORE COURT-1 (DIVISION BENCH) PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-B.
IN CEA No.100003/2014:
BETWEEN
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX,
NO. 71, CLUB ROAD,
BELGAUM-590 001. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S N RAJENDRA, ADV.)
AND
ULTRA-TECH CEMENT LTD.,
UNIT M/S. RAJSHREE CEMENT WORKS,
MALKHED, DIST: GULBARGA. ... RESPONDENT
3
THIS CEA IS FILED U/SEC.35 G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE
ACT, 1944, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL
QUESTION OF LAW AND DECIDE THE SAME & SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD:03.12.2013 MADE IN MISC. ORDER NO.28004/2013
IN E/MISC/27584/2013 IN E/603/2012-SM ON THE FILE OF THE
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH
ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B.
IN CEA No.100004/2014:
BETWEEN
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX,
NO. 71, CLUB ROAD
BELGAUM-590 001.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S N RAJENDRA, ADV.)
AND
ULTRA-TECH CEMENT LTD.,
UNIT M/S. RAJSHREE CEMENT WORKS,
MALKHED, DIST: GULBARGA. ... RESPONDENT
THIS CEA IS FILED U/SEC.35 G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE
ACT, 1944, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTITAL
QUESTION OF LAW AND DECIDE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD:03.12.2013 MADE IN MISC.ORDER NO.28005/2013 IN
E/MISC/27585/2013 IN E/604/2012-SM ON THE FILE OF THE
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH
ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B.
IN CEA No.100006/2014:
BETWEEN
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX
NO. 71, CLUB ROAD
BELGAUM-590 001. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S N RAJENDRA, ADV.)
4
AND
ULTRA-TECH CEMENT LTD
UNIT M/S. RAJSHREE CEMENT WORKS,
MALKHED, DIST: GULBARGA. ... RESPONDENT
THIS CEA IS FILED U/SEC.35 G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE
ACT, 1944, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTITAL
QUESTION OF LAW AND DECIDE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD:03.12.2013 MADE IN MISC.ORDER NO.28007/2013 IN
E/MISC/27587/2013 IN E/606/2012-SM ON THE FILE OF THE
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH
ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B.
IN CEA No.100007/2014:
BETWEEN
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX,
NO. 71, CLUB ROAD
BELGAUM-590 001. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S N RAJENDRA, ADV.)
AND
ULTRA-TECH CEMENT LTD.,
UNIT M/S. RAJSHREE CEMENT WORKS,
MALKHED, DIST: GULBARGA. ... RESPONDENT
THIS CEA IS FILED U/SEC.35 G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE
ACT, 1944, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTITAL
QUESTION OF LAW AND DECIDE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD:03.12.2013 MADE IN MISC.ORDER NO.28008/2013 IN
E/MISC/27588/2013 IN E/607/2012-SM ON THE FILE OF THE
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH
ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
RAM MOHAN REDDY.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision making, hence these appeals are clubbed together and finally heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. The crucial question for decision making is:
"Whether the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone, Bangalore Bench, for short 'the CESTAT' was justified in extending the interim order of stay, beyond the period of 180 days as provided under proviso to sub section 2A of Section 35-C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in pending appeals?"
3. The reason assigned by the CESTAT in extending the interim order of stay until disposal of the appeals is that there is large pendency of matters in appeals and the delay is unavoidable.
4. In COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AHMADABAD VS. KUMAR COTTON MILLS PRIVATE 6 LTD.,1 when similar such situation arose, it was observed thus:
"6. The sub-section which was introduced in terrorem cannot be construed as punishing the assessees for matters which may be completely beyond their control. For example, many of the Tribunals are not constituted and it is not possible for such Tribunals to dispose of matters. Occasionally by reason of other administrative exigencies for which the assessee cannot be held liable, the stay applications are not disposed within the time specified. The reasoning of the Tribunal expressed in the impugned order and as expressed in the Larger Bench matter, namely, IPCL v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara (supra) cannot be faulted. However we should not be understood as holding that any latitude is given to the Tribunal to extend the period of stay except on good cause and only if the Tribunal is satisfied that the matter could not be heard and disposed of by reason 1 2005 (180) ELT 434 (SC) 7 of the fault of the Tribunal for reasons not attributable to the assessee."
5. In the facts of these cases too, CESTAT having extended the period of stay on a good cause i.e., it had large number of appeals pending hearing and was satisfied that the appeals could not be heard and disposed of by reason of that of the Tribunal not attributable to the assessee, the observation of the Apex Court in Kumar Cotton Mills' case, is apposite.
6. The question formulated supra, is accordingly answered. The appeals devoid of merit, are accordingly rejected.
IA-I/2014 in CEA 100004/2014 and CEA 100006/2014 do not survive for consideration and are rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE jm/-