[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Commissioner Of Cgst And Cx vs M/S Castrol India Limited on 10 February, 2026
Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
1
OD - 7 to 9
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction [Central Excise]
ORIGINAL SIDE
CEXA/29/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025
COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CX, KOLKATA SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE
VS
M/S CASTROL INDIA LIMITED
CEXA/30/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025
COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CX, KOLKATA SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE
VS
M/S CASTROL INDIA LIMITED
CEXA/31/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025
COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CX, KOLKATA SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE
VS
M/S CASTROL INDIA LIMITED
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ
And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Date : 10th February, 2026
Appearance :
Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anurag Roy, Adv.
Mr. Aayush Sharma, Adv.
...for appellant.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, Adv.
...for respondent.
The Court : There is a delay of 92 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied with
the explanation offered for not preferring the appeal within time. Therefore, the delay is
condoned. The application is allowed.
IA No.GA/1/2025 is disposed of.
We have heard Mr. Kundalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant.
The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:
"i) Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that in case there is wrong
distribution of Cenvat credit by the ISD, it is not the ISD which is responsible for paying
back the wrongly distributed credit but the unit which has actually utilized such wrongly
distributed credit for discharge of tax liability as per Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules,
2004?
ii) Whether the Learned Tribunal did not appreciate that since there is no assessment of
tax at the end of the Input Service Distributor, the jurisdiction to analyse the correctness
of the Cenvat credit availed lies with the authority that has jurisdiction over the unit that
has actually availed such Cenvat credit?
iii) Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that the show cause notices
were clear that the services for which Cenvat credit had been availed by the Respondent
were not proper input services under the definition of "input service" as per Rule 2(1) of
the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?
iv) Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that fulfillment of the
conditions stipulated in Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit rules, 2004 would not be sufficient
for the purposes of distribution and availment of Cenvat credit unless eligibility test is
passed by each and every input service for availment of credit?"
As the appellant as well as the respondent are agreeable on the issue that
the matter can be heard on the existing papers filed along with the application
for stay being GA 2 of 2025, formality of preparing paper books are dispensed
with.
Settlement of index and all other formalities are also dispensed with.
Since the respondent is represented, service of notice of appeal stands dispensed
with.
List these matters in the list under the heading 'To Be Mentioned' on 12 th March,
2026.
(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)
(UDAY KUMAR, J.)
sd/
