Judicial Corner: CESTAT order challenged  where substantial questions of law arose regarding interpretation of Central Excise provisions, High Court held that Tribunal’s findings required interference and matter required reconsideration in accordance with law (17.04.2026)

Daily Updates / By

CESTAT order challenged  where substantial questions of law arose regarding interpretation of Central Excise provisions, High Court held that Tribunal’s findings required interference and matter required reconsideration in accordance with law { Sanmar Matrix Metals Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise C.M.A. (MD) No. 368 of 2022, decided on 08.04.2026} 

Facts

  1. Appellant Sanmar Matrix Metals Ltd. filed a statutory appeal before the Madras High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
  2. The appeal was filed against Final Order No. 42294/2021 dated 08.09.2021 passed by the CESTAT, Chennai.
  3. The dispute arose from proceedings initiated by the department regarding indirect tax liability under the Central Excise regime.
  4. The CESTAT had passed an order against the appellant, upholding the department’s stand.
  5. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the appellant approached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, challenging the legality and correctness of the Tribunal’s order.

Issue

  1. Whether the order passed by the CESTAT was legally sustainable in view of the provisions of the Central Excise Act.
  2. Whether the Tribunal had properly appreciated the facts and applicable legal provisions while deciding the case.
  3. Whether the appellant had raised a substantial question of law warranting interference by the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act.

Held

  1. Madras High Court examined the findings of the CESTAT and the relevant statutory provisions governing the dispute.
  2. The Court held that the issues raised by the appellant involved substantial questions of law requiring consideration.
  3. Accordingly, the High Court interfered with the order of the Tribunal and passed appropriate directions.
  4. The Court emphasized that the matter must be decided in accordance with law after proper consideration of the relevant provisions and facts of the case.