Case Details: Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata Versus EMTA Coal Ltd. (2025) 31 Centax 400 (Cal.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- T.S. Sivagnanam & Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), JJ.
- S/Shri Ms Manasi Mukherjee & Bijitesh Mukherjee, Advs., for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Samir Chowdhury, Senior Adv., Abhijit Biswas & Bhaskar Sengupta, Advs., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, engaged in the provision of mining services, was issued a demand under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner accepted the demand and paid the amount in full. Despite this, the Tribunal remanded the entire demand to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. The petitioner contended that remand of the accepted and paid portion was unwarranted, as there remained no dispute requiring reconsideration. The matter was accordingly placed before the Calcutta High Court.
High Court Held
The Calcutta High Court held that, since the petitioner had accepted the demand and already discharged the same, the question of remanding that portion of the demand for fresh consideration could not arise. The Tribunal’s remand to the adjudicating authority was therefore set aside to the extent it pertained to the accepted and paid amount. The remand made by the Tribunal with respect to the remaining portion of the demand was affirmed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Emta Coal Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2025) 31 Centax 399 (Tri. – Kol.) — Modified [Paras 1, 5]
List of Cases Cited
- Commissioner v. Manoj Kumar and Arvind Kumar — 2015 (40) S.T.R. 35 (All.) — Relied on [Para 8]
- Commissioner v. Modi Construction Company — 2011 (23) S.T.R. 6 (Jhar.) — Relied on [Para 10]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Letter F. No. 232/2/2006-CX. 4, dated 12-11-2007 [Para 6]
