Automobile excise cess rebate cannot be denied merely for lack of express mention in the notification; remand ordered.

Rebate of automobile excise cess was held to be governed by the notification read with the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984, because the levy, collection and refund machinery applicable to duty also extended to the cess. Denial of the rebate solely because the cess was not expressly named in the notification was not sustainable, particularly where binding precedent on education cess had not been considered. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether rebate of automobile excise cess was admissible under the relevant notification and whether the impugned order rejecting the rebate claim required interference.

Analysis: The relevant notification was read with the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984, and the Court found that the manner of levy, collection and refund applicable to duty also governed automobile excise cess. The rejection of rebate was based only on the absence of an express reference to the cess in the explanation to the notification. The Court also noted that a prior decision on education cess, affirmed by the Supreme Court, had not been considered while passing the impugned order.

Conclusion: The rejection of rebate could not be sustained on the reasoning adopted in the impugned order, and the matter had to be reconsidered by the authority.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing notification and the connected cess rules show that the refund machinery applicable to duty also applies to cess, a rebate claim cannot be denied merely because the cess is not expressly named in the notification, especially when relevant binding precedent has not been considered.

---