Remanded

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Dibrugarh

CESTAT21 Jan 2026E/75673/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of three appeals involving claims for fuel power levies refund and self-credit. It set aside orders confirming demands and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to implement the Tribunal's prior order allowing special rates of value addition before adjudicating the new show cause notices.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to implement the Tribunal's order dated 22.09.2023 within 60 days and thereafter adjudicate the show cause notices w

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs Dibrugarh — Customs and Excise | CESTAT (2026)

¶1

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA

¶2

REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 1

¶3

Excise Appeal No. 75672 of 2024

¶4

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.82/GHY(A)/COM/CEX/DIB/2024 dated 12.02.2024 passed by Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Guwahati)

¶5

M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. : Appellant Personal Product Factory, Unit-I, P.O.-Doomdooma, Dist.Tinsukia, Assam-786 151 VERSUS

¶6

Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax & : Respondent Central Excise, Guwahati Guwahati Commissionerate, Housefed Complex, DispurBeltola Road, Dispur, Guwahati-781 006.

¶7

With

¶8

Excise Appeal No. 75673 of 2024

¶9

M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. : Appellant

¶10

Personal Product Factory, Unit-I, P.O.-Doomdooma, Dist.Tinsukia, Assam-786 151

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax & : Respondent Central Excise, Guwahati Guwahati Commissionerate, Housefed Complex, DispurBeltola Road, Dispur, Guwahati-781 006.

¶13

With

¶14

Excise Appeal No. 75674 of 2024

¶15

M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. : Appellant

¶16

Personal Product Factory, Unit-I, P.O.-Doomdooma, Dist.Tinsukia, Assam-786 151

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax & : Respondent Central Excise, Guwahati Guwahati Commissionerate, Housefed Complex, DispurBeltola Road, Dispur, Guwahati-781 006.

¶19

APPEARANCE:

¶20

Shri MH Oatil, Shri Viraj Reshomurula, Advocates & Shri Krupa Shah, Consultant, for the Appellant

¶21

Shri Mihir Bondhopadhyay, Spl. Counsel for the Respondent

¶22

CORAM:

¶23

HON’BLE SHRIASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶24

FINAL ORDER NO. 75141-75143/ 2026

¶25

¶26

Appeal No.: E/75672, 75673 & 75674/2024-DB

¶27

DATE OF HEARING :21.01.2026

¶28

Order : [Per Shri Ashok Jindal]

¶29

The appellant has filed these 3 appeals which

¶30

are having a common issue therefore, all are disposed of by a common order.

¶31

The facts of the case are as under:

¶32

2.1 The Appellants are engaged inter-alia in manufacture of Oral Preparations, Cosmetics, Hair Care & Skin Care Preparations, falling under Chapters 33 & 27, in their factories located at Doomdooma Estate, Dist. Tinsukia, Assam, known as Unit-I, Unit-II and Unit-III.

¶33

(1) On 20th November 1997, the Central Government announced an Industrial Policy, inviting entrepreneurs to set up new industrial Units in North-Eastern States and promised that such Units would be exempt from payment of central excise duty and income tax for a period of 10 years from the date of commencement of their commercial production. The Ministry of Industry notified the Industrial Policy on 24th December 1997.

¶34

(ii) In order to aid industrial growth in various nondeveloped areas of the country, including northeastern States, Central Govt. issued Notifications granting exemption from payment of central excise duty on the goods manufactured in such areas.

¶35

(iii) Accordingly, inter-alia Notification No.32/1999CE dated 08.07.1999 was issued granting exemption from duty of excise or additional duty of excise equivalent to the amount paid from PLA, by way of

¶36

¶37

Appeal No.: E/75672, 75673 & 75674/2024-DB

¶38

refund of such duty paid from PLA, after exhausting the Cenvat credit balance.

¶39

2.2 Similar Notifications No.56/2002-CE and 57/2002 both dated 14.11.2002 for Jammu & Kashmir, No.56/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 and No.71/2003CE dated 09.09.2003 for Sikkim, etc. were issued.

¶40

2.3 The said basic Notification No.32/99-CE Ibid was amended by Notification No.17/2008-CE dated 27.03.2008 and Notification No. 31/2008-CE dated 10.06.2008 providing for fixation of special rate, if the manufacturer finds that actual value addition of the goods is more than 115% of the percentage prescribed in the Notification; for which an application to the Commissioner was to be made, not later than 30th September of the respective financial years.

¶41

2.4 Succeeding Notn. No.20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 was issued operative for the period 01.04.2007 providing exemption alike Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999. This Notification was also amended by Notn.No.20/2008-CE dated 27.03.2008 and No.38/2008-CE dated 10.06.2008, providing for fixation of special rate, if the manufacturer finds that actual value addition of the goods is more than 115% of the percentage prescribed in the Notification, alike in Notn.No.32/99-CE.

¶42

2.5 The said Notifications (No.32/99-CE and 20/07 ibid), as amended w.e.f 01.04.2008, had prescribed the formula to arrive at actual value addition, based on financial records of the preceding financial year.

¶43

¶44

Appeal No.: E/75672, 75673 & 75674/2024-DB

¶45

2.6 The said amending Notifications were challenged by the Trade before jurisdictional High Courts and judgments of High Courts became subject matter of challenge before Hon'ble Supreme Court, which culminated in judgment and Order dated 22.04.2020 in the case of VVF, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 378 [2020 (372) ELT 495 (SC)].

¶46

2.7 Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the amendments and held that actual value addition in accordance with the amending Notifications can be claimed by the assessee-manufacturers. In a nutshell, amending Notifications were held intra virus and claim of actual value addition allowed in the amending Notifications was not disturbed.

¶47

2.8 Since the actual value addition to the sales value was more than 115% of the prescribed percentage of 56% (i.e. 64.4%), the Appellants made separate applications for fixation of special rates for Units No. 1, 2 & 3 for each of the Financial Years from 2008-09 to 2016-17, supported by requisite documents, including certificates from their Statutory Auditors.

¶48

2.9 Such 20 applications, filed by the Appellants for fixation of special rate, under Para 2.1 of Notn No.32/99 and Para 2D(1) of Notn. No.20/2007, for the financial years 2008-09 to 2016-17, were rejected by the Ld. Commissioner, vide twenty separate Orders-In-Original, based on various findings/observations contained therein. Each of the said Orders-in-Original passed by the jurisdictional Commissioner was challenged before Hon'ble CESTAT-Kolkata, by filing 20 separate appeals.

¶49

¶50

Appeal No.: E/75672, 75673 & 75674/2024-DB

¶51

2.10 When the aforesaid twenty appeals, against the aforesaid 20 Orders-in-Original rejecting the fixation of special rates of value addition, were pending, three separate Demand Cum Show Cause Notices, all dated 21.10.2020, were issued by Asst. Commissioner, to each of the three Units alleging that they have taken excess refund/availed excess self-credit than eligible amount, as per the table annexed to Para 2A of Notification No.20/2008-CE dated 27.03.2008, amounting to Rs.90,89,24,885/-, Rs.41,44,68,615/- and Rs.27,02,00,832/-, during the period April, 2008 το June, 2017; April, 2008 to June, 2017 and March, 2013 to June, 2017, respectively, in contravention of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment dated 22.04.2020 r/w the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court judgments dated 24.06.2020 and 07.03.2018, which was recoverable from the Appellants in terms of clause (e) r/w clause (g) of Para (X) of Notification No.32/1999-CE ibid, as amended, and Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007, as amended r/w Section 11A(1) of the CEA, 1944, along with the applicable interest, as stipulated in the CEA, 1944 and Rules made thereunder.

¶52

2.11 The Appellants, by their common reply dated 28.12.2021 to aforesaid three SCNs, resisted the charges in the said SCNs based on various grounds and prayed for keeping the SCNs in abeyance, as their appeals against rejection of applications for fixation of special rates for the period 2008-09 to 2016-17 were pending before Hon'ble Tribunal, as the decision of the Tribunal would have a direct bearing on said demands.

¶53

¶54

Appeal No.: E/75672, 75673 & 75674/2024-DB

¶55

2.12 Disregarding the aforesaid submissions, Ld. Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand covered in the said three SCNs, by passing three separate Orders-in-Original, Unit-wise.

¶56

2.13 The Appellants challenged said Orders-InOriginal, by filing three Writ Petitions [W.P(C)No.1401/2023, W.P(C)No. 1406/2023, W.P(C)No. 1408/2023] on 03.03.2023. Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, vide Order dated 15.03.2023 tagged said three Writs with earlier Writ Petition WP(C)/1261/2021.

¶57

2.14 The Appellants also simultaneously filed three separate appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), against each of the said three Orders-inOriginal, with appropriate pre-deposit of 7.5% of the demand confirmed therein.

¶58

An averment of challenging the said Orders, simultaneously before Hon'ble Gauhati High Court and also before Commissioner (Appeals), was made in the Writs as well as in the Appeals.

¶59

2.15 In their appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellants, in the grounds, referred to and relied upon the grounds in the Petition filed by Appellants before Hon'ble Gauhati High Court.

¶60

2.16 Thereafter, twenty appeals filed by the Appellants before CESTAT-Kolkata, against rejection of their applications for fixation of special rate, for the financial years 2008-09 to 2016-17, were heard on 23.08.2023. The Hon'ble Tribunal, vide Final

¶61

¶62

Appeal No.: E/75672, 75673 & 75674/2024-DB

¶63

Order No.76741-76760/2023 dated 22.09.2023, set aside the Orders-in-Original impugned in those twenty appeals and allowed the appeals, holding that value addition, as claimed by the Appellants, was correct.

¶64

2.17 In view of the above, the Appellants approached the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court to withdraw the Writ Petitions No. W.P(C)No.1261/2021, W.P(C)No. 1401/2023, W.P(C)No.1406/2023 & W.P(C)No.1408/2023 filed by them and the Hon'ble High Court, vide Order dated 07.12.2023, was pleased to dispose those Writ Petitions, as withdrawn.

¶65

2.18 In the meantime, the Dept. has challenged the aforesaid Final Order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the Tribunal, before Hon'ble Gauhati High Court along with Interlocutory Application (I.A.) (Civil)658/2025 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, vide Order dated 30.04.2025 (copy enclosed), has dismissed said I.A. as withdrawn.

¶66

2.19 The Commissioner (Appeals), by impugned common Order-in-Appeal No.82/GHY(A)/COM/CEX/DIB/2024 dated 12.02.2024, has rejected all the three appeals filed by the Appellants, holding that there are no merits in the appeals and there is no reason to differ with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority, based on the following findings:

¶67

i) that the demands in the present case do not appear to be on rejection of special rate fixation

¶68

¶69

Appeal No.: E/75672, 75673 & 75674/2024-DB

¶70

applications filed by the Appellants for which the Appellants have got a favourable order from CESTAT;

¶71

ii) that the demands in the present case are against the action of the Appellants of taking self-credit suomotu, subsequent to the judgment of Gauhati High Court which was reversed once the final decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court was given;

¶72

iii)that the status of CESTAT Final Order No. 7674176760/2023 dated 22.09.2023 is not known, i.e. as to whether the said judgment of Hon'ble CESTAT dated 22.09.2023 has been accepted by the Dept. or not;

¶73

iv) that the Appellants have not argued on merits as to why the demands are not correct and, hence, there are no merits in the appeals filed. Hence these appeals.

¶74

The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that infact the appellant filed various application in view of the Notifications 17/2008 CE dated 27.03.2008 and Notification No. 31/2008 C.E. dated 10.06.2008 for special fixation of rates which were pending before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 76746 -76760/2023 dated 22.09.2023 allowed their appeals and directed the Adjudicated Authority to implement special rates as prayed by the appellant in their applications.

¶75

We further, take note on the fact that the said order was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court but no stay has been obtained thereon.

¶76

¶77

Appeal No.: E/75672, 75673 & 75674/2024-DB

¶78

In view of that it would be in the interest of justice to direct the Adjudicating Authority first to implement our order dated 22^nd September, 2023 and thereafter to adjudicate the impugned Show Cause Notices issued to the appellant. In view of this, we set aside the impugned orders and remand matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to implement our order dated 22^nd September, 2023 within 60 days from today and thereafter to adjudicate the impugned Show Cause Notices within one month thereof. With these terms appeal is disposed of by way of remand.

¶79

At this stage the Ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that they are entitled to take Cenvat Credit as per the order of the Hon’ble Guwahati High court on various dates. For better appreciation of the facts the list of dates and events are extracted here below:

¶80

¶81

Appeal No.: E/75672, 75673 & 75674/2024-DB

¶82

¶83

Appeal No.: E/75672, 75673 & 75674/2024-DB

¶84

¶85

Appeal No.: E/75672, 75673 & 75674/2024-DB

¶86

We hold that in terms of the order of Hon’ble Guwahati High Court wherein the demand raised by denying self credit to the appellant was set aside by the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court. Therefore, the said issue is no more res-integra. Therefore, appellant is entitled to take self-credit in terms of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati.

¶87

In view of this, the impugned orders are set aside and remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to pass the fresh order as detailed in para 5 herein above.

¶88

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

¶89

(ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

¶90

(K. ANPAZHAKAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶91

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Dibrugarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Dibrugarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd. vs Cgst & Central Excise Vadodara II

Commissioner of Customs Excie and Service Tax-Pune-Iii vs Hoerbiger India Pvt. Ltd.

Navpad Flexipack vs Daman

Mylan Laboratories Ltd. vs Bangalore-i

Shreya Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax-Aurangabad

Kec International Ltd. vs Mumbai-Iii

Finolex Cables Ltd. vs Commisioner Central Excise and Service Tax-Pune-I

Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise-Nagpur