Case Details: Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Versus Tata Steel Ltd. (2025) 31 Centax 48 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, JJ.
- S/Shri V.C. Bharathi, Udai Khanna, Ms Adya Jha, Pratyush Srivastava, Vibhu Shankar Mishra, Advs. & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The respondent-assessee was issued a periodical show-cause notice proposing central excise duty on flue gas generated during the manufacture of coke. An adjudication order was passed confirming the demand under Sections 2(d), 2(f), 3, and 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The matter was carried in appeal before the CESTAT, Kolkata.
The Kolkata CESTAT, in the impugned order, followed its earlier decision in the respondent-assessee’s own case, that is, Tata Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner-(2025) 31 Centax 47 (Tri. – Kol.), involving the same issue for an earlier period, wherein it was held that flue gas generated during the manufacture of coke was not a manufactured product and hence not dutiable. Based on this, the adjudication order was set aside. The Department of Revenue filed a civil appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the said order with a delay of 440 days.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Kolkata CESTAT. The appeal, having been filed with a gross delay of 440 days without satisfactory explanation, was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. It was observed that flue gas generated during the manufacture of coke was not a manufactured product and therefore not excisable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Tata Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2025) 31 Centax 47 (Tri. – Kol.) — Affirmed [Para 2]
