9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (4) TMI 479 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Justification of cess levied on coke. 2. Clarification regarding excise duty and cess on coal and coke. 3. Interpretation of Ministry of Coal's clarification. 4. Appeal against OIA No 10/04 (V) CH dated 21-7-2004. Analysis: 1. The appeal in question arises from OIA No 10/04 (V) CH dated 21-7-2004, where the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the cess levied on coke is justified, asserting that coal and coke are considered the same. The appellant contested this decision, citing a clarification from the Ministry of Coal indicating that excise duty and cess are applicable only on raw coal dispatched from mines or used in coke making, not on the final product of the coke plant. The appellant argued that the authorities failed to consider this clarification, wrongly treating coal and the final product of the coke plant as identical. The appellant contended that cess should only be imposed on coal, not on the final product of the coke plant. 2. The Departmental Representative reiterated the Department's stance, stating that the Ministry of Coal's clarification had not been examined by the authorities. The matter was left to the discretion of the Bench for resolution. 3. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal observed that the cess under the Coal Mines/Services and Development Act, 1974 had been collected on imported coke without properly assessing the Ministry of Coal's clarification. Following the clarification provided, it was determined that imported coke constitutes a final product of the coke plant and is distinct from coal. Therefore, the levy of cess on coke was deemed unjustified, leading to the appeal's success based on the Ministry's clarification. 4. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the confirmation of cess on coke, allowing the appeal in line with the Ministry of Coal's clarification, which clearly distinguished between coal and the final product of a coke plant. The decision was pronounced and dictated in open court, resolving the issue raised in the appeal.
|
