- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND CEA NO.62/2019 C/W CEA NO.14/2024, CEA NO.15/2024, CEA NO.16/2024, CEA NO.17/2024, CEA NO.18/2024, CEA NO.19/2024, CEA NO.29/2024, CEA NO.31/2024, CEA NO.32/2024, CEA NO.33/2024 AND CEA NO.35/2024 CEA NO.62/2019 BETWEEN: THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MYSORE COMMISSIONERATE NO.S-1 AND S-2, VINAYA MARGA SIDDARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE-570011 KARNATAKA. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, SR. STANDING COUNSEL) AND: M/S. J K TYRE INDUSTRIES LTD., OFF THE ROAD TYRE PLANT PLOT NO. 85/B, METAGALLI Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS MYSORE - 570 016 KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DATTATRAY D BHAT, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 22.01.2019 PASSED IN FINAL ORDER NO. 20089-20090/2019, PRAYING TO 1. SET ASIDE THE CESTAT FINAL ORDER NO.20089- 20090/2019 DATED 22.01.2019 AND DECIDE THE QUESTION OF LAW FRAMED IN THE ABOVE APPEAL BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND ETC. CEA NO.14/2024 BETWEEN: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MYSORE II DIVISION S-1 AND S-2, VINAYA MARGA SIDDARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE-570011. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, SR. STANDING COUNSEL) AND: J K TYRES & INDUSTRIES LTD., TRUCK RADIAL PLANT–II KRS ROAD, MYSORE-570 016 KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DATTATRAY D BHAT, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.12.2023 PASSED IN FINAL ORDER NO.21409/2023, BY THE CESTAT, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS REGIONAL BENCH, BENGALURU PRAYING TO 1. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CESTAT, BANGALORE IN FINAL ORDER NO.21409/2023 DATED 19.12.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND UPHOLD THE ORDER IN APPEAL DATED 19.01.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ETC. CEA NO.15/2024 BETWEEN: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST S-1 AND S-2, VINAYA MARGA SIDDARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE-570011. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, SR. STANDING COUNSEL) AND: JK TYRES & INDUSTRIES LTD., TRUCK RADIAL PLANT–II KRS ROAD, MYSORE-570 016 KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DATTATRAY D BHAT, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.12.2023 PASSED IN FINAL ORDER NO.21411/2023, BY THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, BENGALURU PRAYING TO 1. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CESTAT, BANGALORE IN FINAL ORDER NO.21411/2023 DATED 19.12.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND UPHOLD THE ORDER IN APPEAL DATED 19.01.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ETC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS CEA NO.16/2024 BETWEEN: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST S-1 AND S-2, VINAYA MARGA SIDDARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE-570011. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, SR. STANDING COUNSEL) AND: JK TYRES & INDUSTRIES LTD., TRUCK RADIAL PLANT–II KRS ROAD, MYSORE-570 016 KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DATTATRAY D BHAT, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.12.2023 PASSED IN FINAL ORDER NO.21412/2023, BY THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BENGALURU PRAYING TO 1. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CESTAT, BANGALORE IN FINAL ORDER NO.21412/2023 DATED 19.12.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND UPHOLD THE ORDER IN APPEAL DATED 19.01.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ETC. CEA NO.17/2024 BETWEEN: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST S-1 AND S-2, VINAYA MARGA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS SIDDARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE-570011. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, SR. STANDING COUNSEL) AND: JK TYRES & INDUSTRIES LTD., TRUCK RADIAL PLANT–II KRS ROAD, MYSORE-570 016 KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DATTATRAY D BHAT, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.12.2023 PASSED IN FINAL ORDER NO.21413/2023, BY THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BENGALURU PRAYING TO 1. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CESTAT, BANGALORE IN FINAL ORDER NO.21413/2023 DATED 19.12.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND UPHOLD THE ORDER IN APPEAL DATED 19.01.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ETC. CEA NO.18/2024 BETWEEN: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST S-1 AND S-2, VINAYA MARGA SIDDARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE-570011. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, SR. STANDING COUNSEL) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS AND: JK TYRES & INDUSTRIES LTD., TRUCK RADIAL PLANT–II KRS ROAD, MYSORE-570 016 KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DATTATRAY D BHAT, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.12.2023 PASSED IN FINAL ORDER NO.21415/2023, BY THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, BENGALURU PRAYING TO 1. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CESTAT, BANGALORE IN FINAL ORDER NO.21415/2023 DATED 19.12.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND UPHOLD THE ORDER IN APPEAL DATED 19.01.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ETC. CEA NO.19/2024 BETWEEN: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST S-1 AND S-2, VINAYA MARGA SIDDARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE-570011. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, SR. STANDING COUNSEL) AND: JK TYRES & INDUSTRIES LTD., TRUCK RADIAL PLANT–II KRS ROAD, MYSORE-570 016 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DATTATRAY D BHAT, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.12.2023 PASSED IN FINAL ORDER NO.21410/2023, BY THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, BENGALURU PRAYING TO 1. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CESTAT, BANGALORE IN FINAL ORDER NO.21410/2023 DATED 19.12.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND UPHOLD THE ORDER IN APPEAL DATED 19.01.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEAL) AND ETC. CEA NO.29/2024 BETWEEN: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST S-1 AND S-2, VINAYA MARGA SIDDARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE-570011. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, SR. STANDING COUNSEL) AND: JK TYRES & INDUSTRIES LTD., TRUCK RADIAL PLANT–II KRS ROAD, MYSORE-570 016 KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DATTATRAY D BHAT, ADV.) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.12.2023 PASSED IN FINAL ORDER NO.21406/2023, BY THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BENGALURU PRAYING TO 1. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CESTAT, BANGALORE IN FINAL ORDER NO.21406/2023 DATED 19.12.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND UPHOLD THE ORDER IN APPEAL DATED 19.01.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEAL) AND ETC. CEA NO.31/2024 BETWEEN: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST S-1 AND S-2, VINAYA MARGA SIDDARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE-570011. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, SR. STANDING COUNSEL) AND: JK TYRES & INDUSTRIES LTD., TRUCK RADIAL PLANT–II KRS ROAD, MYSORE-570 016 KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DATTATRAY D BHAT, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.12.2023 PASSED IN FINAL ORDER NO.21407/2023, BY THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, BENGALURU PRAYING TO 1. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CESTAT, BANGALORE IN FINAL ORDER NO.21407/2023 DATED - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS 19.12.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND UPHOLD THE ORDER IN APPEAL DATED 19.01.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ETC. CEA NO.32/2024 BETWEEN: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST S-1 AND S-2, VINAYA MARGA SIDDARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE-570011. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, SR. STANDING COUNSEL) AND: JK TYRES & INDUSTRIES LTD., TRUCK RADIAL PLANT–II KRS ROAD, MYSORE-570 016 KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DATTATRAY D BHAT, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.12.2023 PASSED IN FINAL ORDER NO.21414/2023, BY THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, BENGALURU PRAYING TO 1. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CESTAT, BANGALORE IN FINAL ORDER NO.21414/2023 DATED 19.12.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND UPHOLD THE ORDER IN APPEAL DATED 19.01.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ETC. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS CEA NO.33/2024 BETWEEN: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST S-1 AND S-2, VINAYA MARGA SIDDARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE-570011. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, SR. STANDING COUNSEL) AND: JK TYRES & INDUSTRIES LTD., TRUCK RADIAL PLANT–II KRS ROAD, MYSORE-570 016 KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DATTATRAY D BHAT, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.12.2023 PASSED IN FINAL ORDER NO.21408/2023, BY THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, BENGALURU PRAYING TO 1. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CESTAT, BANGALORE IN FINAL ORDER NO.21408/2023 DATED 19.12.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND UPHOLD THE ORDER IN APPEAL DATED 19.01.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ETC. CEA NO.35/2024 BETWEEN: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST S-1 AND S-2, VINAYA MARGA - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS SIDDARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE-570011. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, SR. STANDING COUNSEL) AND: JK TYRES & INDUSTRIES LTD., TRUCK RADIAL PLANT–II KRS ROAD, MYSORE-570 016 KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DATTATRAY D BHAT, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.04.2024 PASSED IN FINAL ORDER NO.20277/2024, BY THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BENGALURU PRAYING TO 1. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CESTAT, BANGALORE IN FINAL ORDER NO.20277/2024 DATED 19.04.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND UPHOLD THE ORDER IN APPEAL DATED 20.04.2012 PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MYSORE II DIVISION AND ETC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard learned counsel Sri.Aravind V Chavan for appellant-Revenue and Sri.Dattatreya D Bhat, learned counsel for respondents in all the appeals. Perused the appeal papers. 2. These appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging the final orders Nos.20089-20090/2019 dated 22.01.2019 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘CESTAT’). 3. For the sake of brevity, reference is made to the facts as recorded in CEA No.62/2019. 4. The Revenue has formulated the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court: In CEA No.62/2019 (a) Whether the CESTAT was right in upholding the orders of lower authorities in allowing the refund arisen on finalization of provisional assessment, without examining unjust enrichment clause? (b) Whether the CESTAT failed to appreciate and follow the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Madras V/S M/s Addison & Co. Ltd., 2016(339) ELT 177 (SC) which was again confirmed in - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS Order dated 27.04.2017 in Review Petition (2017 (353) ELT A64 (S.C)? (c) Whether under the facts and circumstances, the impugned order of the CESTAT is correct in holding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the case of Provisional Assessments? (d) Whether in the case of provisional assessment, the refund of duty is governed by the provisions contained in proviso (d) & (e) of Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944? (e) Whether the presumption contained in Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies or not in case of Provisional Assessments also? In CEA No.14/2024 and other appeals (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble CESTAT has erred in not appreciating the law, that the rule of res judicata, as embodied in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) has no application in tax matters, has each year’s assessment and decision is hence final to only that financial year and there is no question of res judicata because each year’s assessment is final only for that year and does not govern later years? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble CESTAT has erred in following the Jurisdictional High Court judgment in CEA No.39/2018 dated 01.09.2021 without discussing the merits of the case? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble CESTAT has erred in setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 19.07.2017? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble CESTAT has erred in not following the Hon’ble Supreme Court order in Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras VS Addision & Co. Ltd., 2016 (339) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) wherein both the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS issues i.e., verification of unjust enrichment clause and netting of duty is answered in favour of the Appellant/Department? (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble CESTAT has erred in not appreciating the law, that the netting of the excess paid duties and short paid duties for arriving at the net refund/demand by the lower authority at the time of finalization of provisional assessment is not legal and proper? (vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble CESTAT has erred in not appreciating the law, that without examining the unjust enrichment clause, refund cannot be sanctioned and the said aspect was not examined by the lower authority while sanctioning the refund to the assessee at the time of finalization of provisional assessments? 5. These appeals are admitted to examine the aforesaid substantial questions of law. Since the issues raised in all these appeals are identical and common arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, all the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 6. The respondent-assessee is engaged in the manufacture of tyres. Three of its units cleared goods to the depots on provisional assessment under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, on the ground that the value of the goods was not ascertainable at the time of removal. Upon finalization of the provisional assessment, adjustment of short-paid and excess- - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS paid duty was sought. The Adjudicating Authority held that the incidence of duty had been passed on to the ultimate customers and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to netting off or adjustment of excess payment against the duty short-paid. 7. The assessee challenged the adjudication order before the Commissioner (Appeals), contending that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable and that compliance with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 11(6A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not required. The Commissioner (Appeals), by order dated 01.02.2018, rejected the contentions of the assessee and upheld the view of the Adjudicating Authority. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee preferred an appeal before the CESTAT. 9. The CESTAT, following its earlier order in the assessee’s own case, held that where provisional assessment is made, Section 12B of the Act and Rule 7 of the Rules are not - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS applicable. The Revenue has called in question the said orders of the CESTAT in these appeals. 10. Sri. Aravind V. Chavan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue, submits that since the goods were moved from the place of manufacture to the depots of the assessee, the value of the goods was not ascertainable and, therefore, duty was paid provisionally. In the course of such provisional payment, there were instances of both excess and short payment of duty. Upon final assessment, the assessee sought netting off or adjustment of excess payment against the duty short-paid. In this regard, it is contended that the burden lies on the assessee to establish that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the end user/customer. It is further submitted that Rule 7 of the Rules and Section 12B of the Act have to be read conjointly, thereby imposing an obligation on the assessee to discharge the burden of proving that the duty has not been passed on to the customer. Failing such proof, any refund would amount to unjust enrichment in the hands of the assessee. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS 11. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal, in the earlier order referred to in the impugned order, has not taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras v. M/s. Addison and Company Limited, reported in (2016) 10 SCC 56. He further contends that though the order relied upon by the Tribunal has been confirmed by this Court in CEA No.39/2018, in view of the judgment in M/s. Addison and Company Limited (supra) not having been appreciated in its proper perspective, the matter requires independent consideration. 12. Per contra, Sri. Dattatrey D. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, submits that the Tribunal was justified in following its earlier order dated 11.04.2018 passed in the case of the assessee. He further submits that the said order of the CESTAT dated 11.04.2018 has been confirmed by this Court in CEA No.39/2018. It is his contention that, in view of the said order of this Court, the substantial questions of law raised in these appeals stand squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeals. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS 13. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the appeal papers. 14. The facts referred to hereinabove are identical to those involved in the order of the CESTAT dated 11.04.2018. There is no change either in the factual matrix or in the legal position, except for the difference in the periods under consideration. Significantly, the order of the CESTAT dated 11.04.2018 was challenged by the Revenue before this Court in CEA No.39/2018. By judgment dated 01.09.2021, this Court, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Addison and Company Limited (supra), held that the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules and Section 12B of the Act are not applicable in cases of provisional assessment. 15. In response to a specific query of the Court, learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the order passed in CEA No.39/2018 has attained finality. 16. In view of the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CEA No.39/2018, the substantial questions of law - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32196-DB CEA No. 62 of 2019 C/W CEA No. 14 of 2024 CEA No. 15 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS raised herein are squarely covered. No justifiable or demonstrable ground is made out to take a different view or to depart from the order passed in CEA No.39/2018. The Revenue has not urged any other ground warranting independent examination of these appeals. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeals. Accordingly, all the appeals stand dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1