Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether rebate of automobile cess paid on exported motor vehicles was admissible under Notification No. 197/62-C.E. dated 17-11-1962 issued under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, in the absence of a notification issued with reference to Rule 3 of the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984.
Analysis: Automobile cess was chargeable as a duty of excise and the Central Excise Act and Rules were applicable to its levy and collection, but the governing notification was issued only under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules. The definition of 'duty' in the Central Excise Rules and the structure of Rule 12 showed that rebate flowed only through a notification specifically authorising it. The reasoning in the cited decisions established that where a notification is issued under the Central Excise Rules simpliciter, it operates only for the duty of excise levied under Section 3 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, and does not automatically extend to a separate cess levy unless the relevant cess provisions are also invoked. No notification under Rule 12 read with Rule 3 of the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984 was shown.
Conclusion: Rebate of automobile cess was not admissible under the notification relied on, and the claim for rebate failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A notification issued under the Central Excise Rules, without express invocation of the cess provisions, cannot be construed to grant rebate or exemption in respect of a separate cess levy, even if that cess is collected as a duty of excise.