Case Law Research

CESTAT Chennai : M.M.Engineers Pvt.Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore : 10th March, 2017


Appeal No. E/856/2003
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.190/2003-CE dated 25.07.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore]

M.M.Engineers Pvt.Ltd.


Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore

None For the Appellant
Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) For the Respondent

Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Technical Member

Date of Hearing / decision : 10.03.2017

FINAL ORDER No.40460/2017

Per D.N. Panda

None present for the appellant. When the matter was started listing from 2009, on one pretext or the other, appellant is seeking adjournment and that has been allowed. Seven years have passed but the appellant is not at all having any interest to pursue this appeal.

2. It is brought to our notice that this appellant is located at Sundarapuram, Coimbatore called as Unit-II and with the similar name, another unit is located at R.S.Puram, Coimbatore called as Unit-I. Both were governed by common adjudication order dt. 27.3.2000. Although both of them claimed to be independent units, it was found that the manner they were operating, they were only one. When R.S.Puram unit came in appeal No.E/1144/2004 before Tribunal,, for belated appeal, that was dismissed vide Final Order No.319/2005 dt. 07.03.2005. Ld. D.R. says that against dismissal of appeal, appellant (Unit-I) was before Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.14666 of 2005.

3. Without prejudice to the order of dismissal passed by Tribunal as above, this appeal has been looked afresh.

4. The order of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) shows the allegation against the units how they were operating at two different locations and enjoying benefit of SSI notification unduly. He found that appellant had never come out with clean hands to inform the department about its operations at two different places. It was claiming to be job worker and the other unit was claiming to be a manufacturer. When the appellant did not come out with clean hands to prove that they are in independent status of manufacturer, Revenue considered that those two units were created to be instrumentality for making undue gain of the SSI benefit. Therefore that was denied.

5. Even today, when then appellant has not appeared to defend against the allegations of Revenue, it appears that the present appeal is an abuse of process of law for which that is dismissed.

6. It has been brought to our notice by ld. D.R that Hon'ble High Court of Madras while passing the order on 29-04-2005 has stayed the proceeding further in respect of Final Order No. 319/2005 dt. 07.03.2005 covered by W.P.No. 14666 of 2005 in respect of Unit-I. The order aforesaid has been passed is for no stay of the present proceeding before the Hon'ble High Court.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(Madhu Mohan Damodhar)                           (D.N. Panda)
Technical Member                                         Judicial Member


Additional Info

  • Date Range: Friday, 10 March 2017
  • Court/Authority: CESTAT
  • Tax Type: Central Excise
  • Petitioner/Appellant: M.M.Engineers Pvt.Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
  • Respondent: M.M.Engineers Pvt.Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
  • Appl no. or Appl year: Appeal No. E/856/2003
  • Supreme Court Location: Delhi
  • CESTAT Location: Chennai
  • AAR Location: Delhi
  • Authority: Supreme Court

A New Feature :

Advanced Case Law Search


7th April, 2016

The “Advanced Case Law Search” feature in TaxQuotient  enables search on separate parameters such as Court, Tax Type, Date (from & to Range), appellant, respondent and even keywords. This helps you in locating case law you are searching for swiftly.

TIP: #1 : If you want to view the latest cases, just enter the start and end dates keeping all other boxes blank. You will get a list of all available indirect tax cases during that period.

TIP # 2 : Please keep the date range (start to end date) for upto 6 months.

TIP # 3 : Don't forget to reset the search to clear the earlier results before a new search.

Click to enter Advanced Case Law Search

 GST Bill passed by Parliament




The 122nd Constitution Amendment Bill introduced in Parliament in December 2014 has been passed by the Rajya Sabha and now also by the Lok Sabha with the amendments.  Now the Bill must get ratified by at least half the number of 31 State Legislatures which means 16 States and then finally get the approval from the President.

Thereafter the GST Council has to be set up which will determine the GST design at the granular level. This will include the structure of GST including scope of CGST, SGST and IGST, the taxes subsumed, the items/commodities covered and other critical aspects such as the threshold limits for taxability, exemptions, and several other parameters critical for an ideal  GST.

Further, for the GST to operate smoothly, the taxes paid on goods and services at every stage in the value chain needs to be tracked. This requires an IT infrastructure which will track the transactions and taxes paid and form the back-bone of GST. Reportedly considerable work has been already done on it, nevertheless it will need changes to correctly reflect the GST Law proposed by the GST Council and accepted by the Central & State Legislatures.

Last but not the least,  the tax authorities and other stakeholders who will implement the GST need to be trained for a smooth introduction.

Seven questions to know if you 

are paying taxes 


If you are the CFO or the Tax Head you ought to read this. Click Here

CESTAT Updates

June- July 2016


Brief update on CESTAT judgements passed during June 2016 to July 2016. Please note this update is not a summary of the cases but only leads on important issues decided. The links to the judgments are also provided for the full text.

Click here for update

Our Main Services 

in Indirect Taxes


  • Business structuring and tax planning
  • Review of end-to-end business processes for indirect taxes
  • Strategy to prevent litigation, representation and litigation support
  • Tax compliance and tax control framework
  • Support on specific issues
Go to top