Case Details: Surya Air Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise ST, Chandigarh-II (2025) 28 Centax 119 (Tri.-Chan)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri S.S. Garg, Member (J) & P. Anjani Kumar, Member (T)
- Shri Sanjay Bansal, Adv., for the Appellant.
- Shri Yashpal Singh, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, engaged in filling compressed hydrogen gas into returnable cylinders, was issued a demand for excise duty on the ground that the process constituted ‘manufacture’ under Section 2(f)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Chapter Note 9 to Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee received hydrogen gas through a pipeline and filled it into cylinders after filtration and compression to remove moisture. The department contended that this process altered the gas’s marketability, making it liable for duty. The assessee challenged the demand before CESTAT, relying on its earlier favourable ruling, which had been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
CESTAT Held
The Hon’ble CESTAT ruled that filtering and compressing hydrogen gas did not constitute ‘manufacture’ under excise law. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the assessee’s own case, it held that moisture removal and compression were part of the storage process and did not create a new commercial product. The Tribunal quashed the excise duty demand and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law.
List of Cases Cited
- Commissioner v. Surya Air Products Pvt. Ltd. — (2024) 21 Centax 151 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 4, 6, 7, 8]
- Surya Air Products Pvt. Limited v. Commissioner — 2019 (366) E.L.T. 904 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 4, 6, 7]
