Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Jai Balaji Industries Ltd vs Bolpur Commissionerate on 19 February, 2026
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Excise Appeal No. 76167 of 2018
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 83/DGP-C.EX./2018 dated 09.01.2018 passed by
the Commissioner (Appeals), Goods & Service Tax, Siliguri Appeal Commissionerate,
C.R. Building, Hakimpara, Haren Mukherjee Road, Siliguri - 734 001)
M/s. Jai Balaji Industries Limited (Unit-IV) : Appellant
Vill.: Banskopa, P.O.: Rajbandh,
District: Burdwan, Durgapur - 713 212
VERSUS
Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise : Respondent
Durgapur-I Commissionerate,
City Centre, Durgapur - 713 216
AND
Excise Appeal No. 77061 of 2018
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 178/DGP-C.EX./2018 dated 06.03.2018 passed by
the Commissioner (Appeals), Goods & Service Tax, Siliguri Appeal Commissionerate,
C.R. Building, Hakimpara, Haren Mukherjee Road, Siliguri- 734 001)
M/s. Jai Balaji Industries Limited (Unit-III) : Appellant
Vill.: Banskopa, P.O.: Rajbandh,
District: Burdwan, Durgapur - 713 212
VERSUS
Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise : Respondent
Durgapur-III Commissionerate,
City Centre, Durgapur - 713 216
APPEARANCE:
Shri Sankarsan Mohapatra, Vice President (Taxation),
For the Appellant
Shri Prasenjit Das, Authorized Representative,
For the Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER NOs. 75264-75265 / 2026
DATE OF HEARING / DECISION: 19.02.2026
Page 2 of 6
Appeal No(s).: E/76167 & 77061/2018-DB
ORDER:[PER SHRI ASHOK JINDAL] The appellants are in appeal against the impugned orders. The details of the present appeals are as under: -
Sl. Appeal No. Name of Impugned Central Period of No. the Order No. excise dispute Appellant & Dt. duty demanded (in Rs.)
1. E/76167/2018 M/s. Jai OIA No. 1,07,098/- August, Balaji 83/DGP- (incl. cess) 2013 to Industries C.EX./2018 November, Ltd. (Unit- dated 2013 IV) 09.01.2018
2. E/77061/2018 M/s. Jai OIA No. 3,29,963/- August, Balaji 178/DGP- (incl. cess) 2013 to Industries C.EX./2018 November, Ltd. (Unit- dated 2013 III) 06.03.2018
2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are holders of Central Excise Registration and engaged in manufacture of iron & steel products of different grade / varieties falling under Chapter No. 72 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are having several units. The present appeals pertain to their Unit-III and Unit-IV, located in Durgapur. For the manufacture of their above final product, the appellants procure Sinter, Nut Coke, BFG Slag, Ferro Manganese Slag, etc.
3. During the course of investigation, it was noticed that during the period under dispute, the appellants were involved in clearing the said goods to their related sister / inter units as well as selling similar goods to other unrelated / independent buyers.
Page 3 of 6Appeal No(s).: E/76167 & 77061/2018-DB
4. On the basis of the above, Show Cause Notices, all dated 04.09.2014, were issued to the appellants proposing to demand central excise duty allegedly short-paid by them during the impugned period, along with interest and penalty thereon, on the ground that the appellants had contravened the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules and Rules 4, 6 and 8 of the said Rules.
5. The matters were thereafter adjudicated and the demands of central excise duty, along with interest and penalty, were confirmed against the appellants.
5.1. The appellants challenged the said adjudication orders before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who, vide the impugned orders, has upheld the demands confirmed against the appellants.
5.2. Against the said orders, the appellants are before us.
6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that any excise duty paid / payable by the appellants on removal of goods to their sister unit(s), would be available as CENVAT Credit in terms of the CENVAT Credit Rules and therefore, the issue is revenue neutral. He submits that the issue is no longer res integra as the same has already been decided in favour of the appellants in the appellants' own cases, wherein the demands have been set aside on the revenue neutrality: -
i. Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bolpur [Final Order Nos. 75779-75790 of 2023 dated 22.06.2023 in Excise Appeal No. 552 of 2011 & ors.
- CESTAT, Kolkata] Page 4 of 6 Appeal No(s).: E/76167 & 77061/2018-DB ii. Jai Balaji Industries Ltd., Unit-III & ors. v.
Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & C.Ex., Bolpur [Final Order Nos. 77686-77691 of 2023 dated 29.11.2023 in Excise Appeal No. 75321 of 2014 & ors. - CESTAT, Kolkata] 6.1. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant prays for setting aside the impugned demands.
7. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue supported the impugned orders.
8. Heard the parties and considered their submissions.
9. Admittedly, in this case, the appellants have cleared goods to their sister units, on payment of central excise duty. Therefore, the duty paid would be available to the recipient unit as CENVAT Credit. The same issue has been dealt with by this Tribunal in the appellant's own case in Jai Balaji Industries Ltd., Unit- III & ors. v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & C.Ex., Bolpur [Final Order Nos. 77686-77691 of 2023 dated 29.11.2023 in Excise Appeal No. 75321 of 2014 & ors.
- CESTAT, Kolkata] and therefore, the issue is no more res integra. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced below: -
"10. We observe that the Appellants' cleared the goods on stock transfer to their sister units. The entire duty paid by the Appellants 'would be available to the recipient unit as Cenvat credit. Accordingly we find that the entire issue is of revenue neutral. We find that the decision cited by the Appellant in the case of Anglo French Textiles Vs Commissioner Of C.Ex. Pondicherry reported in 2018(360) ELT 1016 (Tri-Chennai), is squarely applicable in this case. In this case the demand confirmed has been set aside on the ground of revenue neutrality. We observe that this decision has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also Vide 2018(360) ELT A301 SC. The relevant para Page 5 of 6 Appeal No(s).: E/76167 & 77061/2018-DB from the decision of the Tribunal is reproduced below:
"5. On considering the fact that the goods are cleared to the sister unit and also the fact that the appellant is eligible for credit on the duty paid, the entire exercise is a revenue neutral situation as contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant. This being the case, even if the appellant is directed to pay duty, other sister unit would be eligible for the credit. In the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. (supra), in a similar situation, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held that when there is revenue neutrality, the demand of duty is unsustainable.
6. We find that it is a fit case to set aside the demand on the basis of revenue neutrality which we hereby do. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any."
11. By relying on the decision cited above, we hold that the demands confirmed in the Impugned orders are not sustainable on the ground of revenue neutrality and accordingly, we set aside the same."
9.1. Further, the same view has also been taken in the case of Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bolpur [Final Order Nos. 75779-75790 of 2023 dated 22.06.2023 in Excise Appeal No. 552 of 2011 & ors. - CESTAT, Kolkata], wherein it has been held that being a revenue neutral situation, no duty is payable by the appellant.
10. Therefore, by applying the ratio laid down in the decisions cited supra, we hold that demands confirmed against the appellants are not sustainable on the ground of revenue neutrality and consequently, the same are set aside.
Page 6 of 6Appeal No(s).: E/76167 & 77061/2018-DB
11. In the result, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals, with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) Sd/-
(ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Sd/-
(K. ANPAZHAKAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Sdd