Case Details: Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Bhubaneswar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (2025) 35 Centax 181 (Tri.-Cal)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri R. Muralidhar, Member (J) & K. Anpazhakan, Member (T)
- Shri Subrata Debnath, Authorized Representative, for the Appellant.
- Shri Hersh Choudhary, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The respondent-assessee exported Iron Ore Fines classifiable under Tariff Heading 2601, and the dispute concerned the determination of Fe content for applicability of export duty under Entry 20A of Notification No. 27/2011-Cus., dated 01-03-2011. It was contended that Fe content was required to be determined on ‘As is’ or Wet Metric Ton (WMT) basis, inclusive of moisture, and not on a dry basis. Reliance was placed on the Central Board of Excise and Customs (C.B.E. & C.) Circular No. 4/2012-Cus., dated 17-02-2012, which specified that Fe content must be assessed on WMT basis. It was submitted that the Fe content certified by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) on a Dry Metric Ton basis could not be relied upon for the levy of export duty, and that other reports applying the standard industry formula indicated Fe content below 58%. The respondent-assessee contended that export duty was therefore not applicable in terms of Entry 20A of the said notification. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the determination of Fe content of Iron Ore Fines is required to be made on ‘As is’ or Wet Metric Ton basis and not on a dry basis. It was observed that C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 4/2012-Cus., dated 17-02-2012, clearly prescribed WMT as the basis for such determination, and therefore, the CRCL report based on Dry Metric Ton could not be relied upon for the levy of export duty. The CESTAT noted that other reports, upon applying the standard industry formula, indicated Fe content below 58% on a WMT basis. Referring to Entry 20A of Notification No. 27/2011-Cus., dated 01-03-2011, read with Section 25 and Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 2 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, it was held that export duty was not applicable on the Iron Ore Fines exported. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected in favour of the assessee.
List of Cases Cited
- Fomento Resources Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2019 (370) E.L.T. 1381 (Tribunal) — Followed [Paras 12, 19]
- General Nice Mineral Resources (I) P. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2017 (352) E.L.T. 94 (Tribunal) — Followed [Paras 11, 19]
- Obulapuram Mining Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2016 (12) TMI 641-CESTAT Hyderabad — Followed [Paras 12, 19]
- Union of India v. Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal — 1997 (89) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 9, 10, 17, 19]
- Union of India v. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal — 1988 (33) E.L.T. 673 (Bom.) — Relied on [Paras 9, 17, 19]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 4/2012-Cus., dated 17-2-2012 [Paras 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 27/2011-Cus., dated 1-3-2011 [Para 9]
