Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20650
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.JAYACHANDRAN, SHAMIM AHMED, JJ
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax – Appellant
Versus
M/s Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1893 of 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.P.Srinivas
For the Respondents: M/s R.Priyanka
The admissibility of cenvat credit on outward transport of goods requires fresh consideration by the CESTAT.
Headnote:The Court analyzed the admissibility of cenvat credit on outward transport of goods post-01.04.2008 under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal had previously remanded similar cases to the Adjudicating Authority. It was found that the issue at hand required fresh consideration in light of existing precedent. The Court determined the matter should also be remanded for consideration. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. admissibility of cenvat credit (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. similar cases remanded for consideration (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. final ruling on remanding appeal (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The issue regarding the admissibility of cenvat credit on outward transport of goods from the place of removal came up for consideration before the CESTAT, Chennai.
2. The Tribunal, taking note of the Judgment rendered in Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore v. M/s ABB Ltd., Vadodara and others reported in [2011 TIOL 395] and the judgment rendered in M/s The India Cements Ltd., and three others vs. CCE, reported in [2007(8) STR 43 (Tri)), remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Adjudicating Authority. Taking into account that the dispute regarding cenvat credit on outward transport of goods has arisen after 01.04.2008, the Department, being aggrieved, has preferred an appeal, which has been pending for more than 13 years.
3. The learned counsel for the Department submits that regarding cenvat credit on outward transport of goods for the period involving after 01.04.2008 the Appellate Authority, against the order passed by the Commissioner, is the CESTAT. It is further submits that this issue has already been settled by the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Coimbatore v. Pricol Limited, Perianaickenpalayam, Coimbatore and another, decided on 22.07.2019. All the civil miscellaneous appeals were similar in nature and were remanded back for fresh consideration and this present case may also be remanded back to the CESTAT for fresh consideration.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents concurs with the above submission.
5. Taking note of the fact that the Division Bench has already decided the cases of a similar nature by remanding them back to the CESTAT for fresh consideration, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of by remanding the matter back to the CESTAT for fresh consideration. No costs.
