CESTAT Weekly Round-Up [Feb 09 to Feb 14, 2025]

This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reported at Taxscan from 14 February 2025 to   February 07 2025.

Excise Order against Liquidated Company is not sustainable: CESTAT M/s. Transstroy (India ) Ltd vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 211

The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that excise Order against a liquidated  company is not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had allowed the application of the Resolution Professional and ordered liquidation of the Company/Corporate Debtor.

The NCLT had allowed the application of the Resolution Professional and ordered liquidation of the Company/Corporate Debtor. Hence, the present appeal could not survive, since the appeal would stand abated, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Ors.

Undenatured Ethyl Alcohol not Excisable, Not  Exempt under Rule 6(3) of CCR: CESTAT M/s.Salem Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd vs The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 212

The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)held that the Undenatured Ethyl Alcohol is not excisable and once the goods are not excisable, they cannot be considered exempt to fall within the scope of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules(CCR), 2004.

The Adjudicating Authority holds that the credit taken by the Appellant in relation to the manufacture of the Undenatured Ethyl Alcohol (described by the Adjudicating Authority as being non-excisable) was without the authority of law. He holds that Rule 6(3)(a) would be inapplicable both in the availment and expunging of credit. The said Authority reasons that the credit was wrongly availed and was not within the purview of Rule 6(3)(a). He reasons that the debit made in the CENVAT credit and the expunging of the CENVAT credit cannot be said to have been done erroneously. He finally rejects the claim, observing that what was wrongly availed had been reversed and that there was thus no question of a claim for refund.

Owners Must Pay Duty on Redeemed Confiscated Goods, Regardless of Who Imported It: CESTAT Shri Dipesh Shah vs Commissioner of Customs (Port) CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 214

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that an owner must pay customs duty on redeemed confiscated goods under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, regardless of who originally imported them.

The tribunal explained that the appellant could not selectively claim ownership for redemption while disclaiming liability for duty. The tribunal ruled that duty is an unavoidable consequence of exercising the redemption option under Section 125(2). The tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

Excise Duty on Aluminium Circles for Utensil Manufacturing: CESTAT Sets Aside Demand and Grants Exemption M/s Mayur Aluminium Industries Private Limited VS Commissioner of Central Excise CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 215

The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the excise duty demand on aluminium circles used for utensil manufacturing by the assessee.

The assessee’s counsel argued that the aluminium circles were used to make utensils, qualifying for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995. Since duty was paid on the final goods, the counsel contended that the duty demand was not justified.

When There is no Revenue Loss, Liberal View Needs to be Taken: CESTAT quashes Excise Duty Demand Welmech Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 216

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the excise duty demand, ruling that when there is no revenue loss, a liberal view must be taken.

Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course - Enroll Today

The tribunal referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar case where it was held that if a procedural mistake does not harm the other party, courts should focus on delivering fair justice rather than strictly enforcing technical rules. It also explained that litigation is meant to uncover the truth, which is the foundation of justice, and courts should take necessary steps to ensure fairness in every case.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates