Commissioner Of CGST And Cx Howrah Commissionerate vs. M/S Steel Products Limited

Held

The Court, after perusing Sections 35G and 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was of the opinion that the appeal preferred by the department should be filed 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 concerning 'manufacture', the applicability of Note 4 of Chapter 73, or the entitlement to the specified notifications. The reasoning for dismissal was procedural, based on the appropriate forum for appeal as stipulated in the Act. The Court did not decide on the substantive issues of excise duty, manufacture, or notification benefits.

Facts

The Commissioner of CGST and CX, Howrah Commissionerate, the appellant, filed an appeal before the High Court at Calcutta against an order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal concerns whether the process undertaken by the respondent, M/s. Steel Products Limited, amounted to 'manufacture' on which excise duty was payable. The appellant also questioned the Tribunal's justification in holding that the respondent was not a manufacturer, despite specific stipulations regarding galvanization amounting to manufacture. The appeal further sought to determine if the respondent was entitled to benefits under certain notifications. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's order was perverse, bad in law, and contrary to the adjudicating authority's findings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the process undertaken by the respondent constitutes 'manufacture' under Section 2(f)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Note 4 of Chapter 73 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Question of Law). The appellant contended that the process undertaken by the respondent amounts to manufacture. 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the assessee is not a manufacturer in violation of Note 4 of Chapter 73 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1985, which stipulates that galvanization shall amount to 'Manufacture' (Question of Law). The appellant argued that the Tribunal's finding contravened this specific provision. 3. Whether the respondent is entitled to avail the benefit of Notification No. 08/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 and Notification No. 214/86-CE Dated 25.03.1986 (Question of Law). The appellant questioned the respondent's eligibility for these benefits. 4. Whether the order passed by the Learned Tribunal is perverse, bad in law, and contrary to the findings of the adjudicating authority and a reasonable one (Question of Mixed Law and Fact). The appellant asserted the order's invalidity. The respondent did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.