BANGALORE : THE Petitioner
is engaged in manufacture of motor cycles / two wheelers. They
manufactured the vehicles at their Mysore plant and cleared them on
payment of duty to their Hosur plant from where they were exported. The
petitioner's Hosur plant had not availed CENVAT credit against the
consignments which were removed to the Hosur plant and exported. The
Hosur unit had issued the disclaimer certificate to enable the
petitioner to claim rebate of duty paid on
two wheelers in respect of
which petitioner had paid duty at the time of removal of the goods.
Hence, petitioner filed a rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central
Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of the duty paid on clearance of the goods
which came to be exported from Hosur plant. The dispute is about the
admissibility of rebate of Automobile Cess and the Education Cess and
Secondary and Higher Education Cess paid by the petitioner. It is the
case of revenue that Automobile Cess and ED Cess and SHE Cess on
Automobile Cess are not specified duties under the Explanation I to the
Notification No 19/2004 CE(NT) and hence, the petitioner is not entitled
for rebate of the same. The Petitioner challenge the order passed by
the Revision Authority.
After hearing both sides, the High Court held:
The
levy of "Automobile Cess" is traceable to the charging Section namely,
Section 9 of The Industries (Development and Regulation), Act, 1951.
Pursuant to above said power, Central Government by notification
No.247(E) (Ministry of Finance) dated 22.03.1990 issued notification
specifying the classes of goods manufactured on which a duty of excise
shall be levied and collected as a Cess for the purposes of said Act,
except those exported in accordance with the procedure prescribed under
Chapter IX of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
A
bare reading of Rule 3 of Automobile Cess Rules would indicate that
provisions relating to collection of duty are indeed applicable to the
Automobile Cess levied under the notification dated 28.12.1983 which
notification came to be superseded by notification dated 22.03.1990 and
as such, the Automobile Cess has been collected as a duty of excise in
terms of the provisions of Central Excise Act. Thus, reference to
Central Excise Act, 1944 in the notification dated 06.09.2004 would also
include Cess collected as a duty of exercise. That apart, automobile
Cess cannot be levied on the goods exported or in other words, when it
is levied and rebate is claimed are required to be refunded when the
goods are so exported.
The
expression "duty" used in Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002
would include such of those duties levied under Section 3 of the Central
Excise Act, 1944 which includes the Cess defined under Rule 2(c) of
Automobile Cess Rules, 1984. To put it in a different manner, Rule 18
does not indicate that rebate can be granted in respect of any duty
other than duty levied under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
As such, the Automobile Cess, Education Cess on Automobile Cess and SHE
Cess on Automobile Cess though not expressly specified under
notification dated 06.09.2004 would encompass within its sweep to
include these Cess within the definition of phrase 'duty'.
Yet
another factor which requires to be noticed is, Section 9 of The
Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 provides for levy
and collection of Automobile Cess and the manner of collection is
required to be determined by the Rules made in that regard. Further,
Section 30 of the above said Act empowers the legislature to make Rules
and pursuant to the same, Automobile Cess Rules, 1984 has been enacted
and Rule 3 of the said Rules at the cost of repetition has to be noted
and plain reading of said rule indicate that provisions of Central
Excise Act, 1944 is applicable for the collection of Cess as a duty of excise.
Thereby, 'Cess' is a duty of excise collected in terms of Central
Excise Act, 1944. Hence, this Court is in respectful agreement with the
view expressed by Rajasthan High Court in Banswara Syntex Limited.
The High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Banswara Syntex Limited 2007-TIOL-553-HC-RAJ-CXwhile
examining as to whether Education Cess levied on excisable goods would
bear the same character as excise duty has held in the affirmative.
In
view of the above, the High Court held that the order passed by the
Revision Authority is not sustainable and quashed the same to the extent
of holding that rebate of Automobile Cess claimed by the petitioner
held inadmissible.
No comments:
Post a Comment