Excise duty under exemption notification does not include education cess or higher education cess for refund purposes

Notification No. 34/2001-C.E. was construed on the settled statutory meaning of "excise duty", which did not extend to education cess or higher education cess levied under the Finance Act, 2004 and the Finance Act, 2007. The later Notification No. 38/2007-C.E. and the Board circular could not enlarge the scope of the earlier exemption notification. The phrase "in full discharge of liability" was read as applying only to duty computed under the notification scheme, not to cesses or other levies under separate enactments. Refund was therefore not admissible on the basis that education cess and higher education cess formed part of excise duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether education cess and higher education cess formed part of the excise duty payable under Notification No. 34/2001-C.E. dated 28th June, 2001 so as to permit refund, and whether the later notification and board circular required a different interpretation.

Analysis: The expression "excise duty" in Notification No. 34/2001-C.E. was held to have a settled statutory meaning, and on that footing it did not include education cess or higher education cess levied under the Finance Act, 2004 and the Finance Act, 2007. The subsequent Notification No. 38/2007-C.E. and the Board's Circular No. 81/17/2007-CX.3 could not override the statutory scope already attributed to the earlier notification. The phrase "in full discharge of liability" was construed as referring only to the duty computed under the scheme of the notification and not to cesses or other levies under different enactments.

Conclusion: Education cess and higher education cess were not includible in the excise duty for purposes of the refund claim, and the refund was not admissible.

---