M/S Jindal Steel And Power Limited vs. Principal Commissioner

Held

The High Court disposed of the appeal with an observation that the Commissioner, Excise, should not be influenced by the observations made by the Tribunal in paragraphs 5 and 6 of its impugned order. The Court acknowledged the appellant's submission that the CESTAT's order was sans reason and did not answer the questions raised. While the CESTAT had observed that the Cess was payable on the 'removal' of goods from the mines and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, the High Court directed that the matter should be decided on all aspects of the submissions made by both the appellant and the revenue, irrespective of the Tribunal's observations. The specific finding on whether the Cess was payable on 'removal' or 'raising' was not definitively decided by the High Court, but it ensured that the assessing authority would consider all arguments during the fresh adjudication.

Facts

M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (the appellant) filed an appeal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had remanded the matter to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication. The appellant contended that the CESTAT's order was devoid of reasoning and failed to address the core issue: whether Clean Energy Cess was payable on the 'removal' or 'raising' of specified goods from mines. The CESTAT, in its order, observed that the Cess was payable on the specified goods when removed from the mines, implying it was applicable from the stage of removal. The High Court noted that the CESTAT's order contained observations regarding the applicability of the Cess at the stage of removal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Clean Energy Cess was payable on the 'removal' of specified goods from the mines or on their 'raising' from the mines, as per Rule 6(1) of the Clean Energy Cess Rules, 2010? The appellant argued that the CESTAT's order lacked proper reasoning and did not adequately address the question of whether the Cess was leviable upon 'removal' or 'raising' of the goods. They contended that the CESTAT's observation that the Cess was payable on removal was insufficient and that the matter needed to be decided on all aspects of the submissions. The respondent (revenue) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding this issue. However, the CESTAT's impugned order, as quoted in the judgment, stated that the Cess was payable on the specified goods when removed from the mines, and hence, Cess is to be paid on the quantity of coal raised from the mine.