HC accepts appellants’s duty redetermination request based on a SC judgment

Kaderi Ambal Steels Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (Madras High Court)

Introduction: Kaderi Ambal Steels Limited approached the Madras High Court with a writ petition, seeking guidance and action from the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise. The contention lay in the redetermination of duties based on a prior Supreme Court judgment that impacted the steel manufacturing industry.

Analysis: The core of this writ petition revolves around Kaderi Ambal Steels Limited’s request to reconsider its duty from the period 01.04.1998 to March, 2000. The steel manufacturing entity places its demand relying on a precedent set by the Supreme Court in Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise. Given that the petitioner’s operations fall under the purview of the aforementioned judgment, the High Court has instructed the respondents to evaluate and determine the representation within a twelve-week window. This order aligns with the principle of adhering to precedents set by higher judicial bodies.

Conclusion: Through this directive, the Madras High Court upholds the significance of the Supreme Court’s judgments as guiding lights in similar disputes. By ensuring the case’s review within a stipulated timeframe, the court emphasizes the urgency and importance of timely decision-making in matters influenced by precedent decisions.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

This writ petition is filed for writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to dispose of the representation, dated 08.03.2023.

2. In the representation, the petitioner is seeking to redetermine the duty for the period from 01.04.1998 to March, 2000. The petitioner is claiming to redetermine based on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2015 (326) E.L.T.209 (S.C.).

3. The petitioner is a steel manufacturing unit and is covered by the said judgment. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking to consider and redetermine based on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, this Court is directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation in the light of the aforesaid judgment within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. With the above said observation, the writ petition is disposed of.