2022 (4) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... AT:- The very same issue has been considered by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CHENNAI II COMMISSIONERATE VERSUS M/S. S.P. FABRICATORS PVT LTD., THE CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ 2018 (10) TMI 1474 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] has analysed the very same issue and held that amendment brought by way of Notification No.50/2008-CE (NT) dated 31.12.2008 is retrospective in operation. Thus, the demand cannot sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate For the Appellant Ms. Sridevi Taritla, ADC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e which is brought by way of substitution. Against this order, the department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). After hearing the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order impugned herein allowed Revenue's appeal and thus confirmed the demand. Aggrieved by such order, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 3. Ld. Counsel Shri M. Karthikeyan appeared and argued for the appellant. He submitted that the issue is no longer res integra and that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CCE Chennai Vs M/s.S.P. Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (10) TMI 1474-MADRAS HIGH COURT has analysed the very same issue and held that amendment brought by way of Notification No.50/2008-CE (NT) dated 31.12.2008 is retrospective in oper .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Limited, which was confirmed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Commissioner vs. Sujana Metal Products Ltd. [ 2016 (342) E.L.T. A115 (A.P.). Therefore, we are inclined to dispose of this appeal by answering the Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration in favour of the Respondent/assessee and at the same time giving liberty to the Revenue, as granted by the High Court of Karnataka in Central Excise Appeal No.54 of 2015, dated 24.02.2016 and in the case of Principal C.C.E Bangalore-I vs. Power Control Equipments (Unit-II). 23. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Substantial Questions of Law framed for c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X