2026-VIL-863-CESTAT-CHE-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-863-CESTAT-CHE-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Duty liability on manufacture of mineral concentrates through physical and mechanical processes – Whether process of converting ores into concentrates amounts to manufacture - HELD - When imported or indigenously sourced titanium ores are subjected to physical and mechanical processes of mineral separation, without any chemical treatment or roasting, resulting in the removal of foreign matter and emergence of concentrated mineral sands, the process amounts to manufacture of concentrates liable to excise duty under the Chapter Note inserted in the tariff with effect from 01.03.2011 - The HSN Explanatory Notes define concentrates as ores which have had part or all of the foreign matter removed by special treatments, either because such foreign matter might hamper subsequent metallurgical operations or with a view to economical transport. The processes undertaken result in separation of valuable rare mineral sands from ordinary sand and facilitate further metallurgical operations and economical transport, thereby meeting the definition of concentrates and attracting duty liability, notwithstanding the absence of any chemical treatment or upgradation of the purity of mineral content – The statutory fiction created by Chapter note 4 inserted with effect from 01.03.2011 in the Customs and Excise Tariff, declaring that the process of converting ores into concentrates amounts to manufacture renders the absence of chemical treatment or roasting irrelevant to the question of manufacture. The appeal challenging the confirmation of demand for Central excise duty on concentrated ores manufactured and cleared during the relevant period is partly allowed by setting aside the demand as barred by limitation of time - Non-compliance with procedural requirements for duty-free clearances to EoUs – Whether non-compliance with prescribed procedures results in denial of substantive exemption benefit – HELD - When goods are cleared to 100% Export Oriented Units without following the prescribed procedural requirements like furnishing Form CT-3, such procedural non-compliance does not deprive the assessee of duty-free benefits if the goods were genuinely received and utilized by the Export Oriented Units for the intended purpose. Where the assessee entertains a bona fide belief that the goods are non-dutiable due to unawareness of statutory amendments in the tariff and consequently fails to follow the procedural formalities applicable to dutiable goods, the assessee cannot be compelled to comply with procedures which are impossible to comply with given the belief that no duty liability exists. The maxim Lex non cogit ad impossibilia applies, and procedural lapses cannot override substantive exemptions available to Export Oriented Unit clearances - The assessee is entitled to duty-free benefit for clearances to EOUs despite procedural non-compliance - As-such clearances of unprocessed mineral sands - Whether clearances claimed as traded goods without processing should be excluded from dutiable turnover – HELD - When goods are cleared in their natural or unprocessed form as raw materials without subjecting them to any manufacturing process, such clearances merit exclusion from the turnover for quantification of excise duty demand. The onus lies on the Revenue to discharge by adducing proof that the goods cleared were processed or concentrated products rather than unprocessed or as-such removals, and mere allegations without evidence cannot substitute for proof. Where the Revenue makes assumptions and presumptions regarding the nature of goods cleared and the use for which they were intended, such assumptions cannot form the basis for denying the assessee's claim for exclusion of as-such sales - The assessee's plea to exclude as-such clearances from the turnover is accepted - Applicability of extended period of limitation – HELD - An extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act cannot be invoked for demanding duty when the issue involved is interpretational in nature and the assessee entertains a bona fide belief that no duty liability arises. Where prior to the statutory amendment defining a particular process as manufacture, coordinate benches of the Tribunal had held that similar processes do not amount to manufacture, and Government undertakings engaged in identical activities do not charge duty until the amendment takes effect, the assessee's non-payment of duty reflects genuine uncertainty regarding liability rather than suppression or evasion. The fact that audit discovers the non-payment of duty does not by itself justify invocation of the extended period, particularly when the assessee had amended its registration to declare the manufacturing activity and commenced payment of duty upon becoming aware of the liability. The charge of clandestine removal is unsustainable where goods are fully recorded in books of accounts and removal documents exist. The demand confirmed under the extended period of limitation is unsustainable and the entire demand is barred by limitation of time.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTAT Appeal filed wrongly...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?