Commissioner Of CGST And Cx, Bolpur Commissionerate vs. M/S Eastern Coal Fields Limited

Held

The High Court, upon perusal of Sections 35G and 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, held that the appeal should have been preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 35L, Sub-section (2) of the Act. The Court did not delve into the merits of the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant regarding the liability to pay cess on closing stock, the perversity of the Tribunal's order, or the violation of natural justice. The reasoning was purely jurisdictional, based on the appropriate forum for such an appeal. The principle derived is that appeals involving determination of taxability or excisability of goods for assessment purposes, as per Section 35L(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, lie with the Supreme Court, not the High Court. Consequently, the appeal and the connected application were dismissed on this procedural ground.

Facts

The Commissioner of CGST and CX, Bolpur Commissionerate (appellant) filed an appeal before the Calcutta High Court against an order passed by the Learned Tribunal. The appeal was filed with a delay of 336 days, for which the appellant sought condonation. The core of the dispute concerns the liability of M/s Eastern Coal Fields Limited (respondent) to pay Clean Energy Cess (later renamed Clean Environment Cess) on goods lying in stock as on June 30, 2017. The appellant argued that the cess was leviable on production and removal of coal, even if it was in closing stock on the specified date. The respondent's liability and the Tribunal's order were under challenge.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent is liable to pay cess under Section 83(3) of the Finance Act, 2010 read with Rule 6 of the Clean Energy Cess Rules, 2010, on goods lying in stock as on June 30, 2017? 2. Whether the impugned order passed by the Learned Tribunal is perverse and suffers from non-application of mind, specifically concerning the levy and collection of Cess on production and clearances of goods, and the applicability of Notification No. 12/2017-CE dated June 30, 2017, to Clean Environment Cess? 3. Whether the impugned order dated January 16, 2025, passed by the Learned Tribunal, violates the principles of natural justice by setting aside the demand solely based on the decision in Bharat Cooking Coal Limited versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi, without addressing the detailed findings in the order-in-original? 4. Whether the impugned order dated January 16, 2025, passed by the Learned Tribunal is perverse and can be sustained under legal scrutiny? Petitioner's Arguments: The appellant contended that the respondent is liable to pay cess on coal in stock as on June 30, 2017, as the levy was on production and required to be discharged on clearances. They argued that Notification No. 12/2017-CE did not exempt Clean Environment Cess on closing stock. They also argued that the Tribunal's order was perverse, lacked application of mind, and violated natural justice by relying on a single precedent without considering the merits. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue.