2013 (11) TMI 434 - HC - Central Excise

High Court grants writ petition, overturns order denying excise cess rebate under Automobile Cess Rules.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order that rejected the claim for rebate of excise cess under the Automobile Cess ... Automobile Excise Cess – Held that:- A combined reading of the notification under the Central Excise Rules and Automobile Duty Rules specifies that the manner of levying, collecting and refund as applicable to the duty are applicable to the Automobile Excise Cess - This aspect of the matter is not considered in the order – Following Banswara Syntex Ltd. v. UOI [2007 (7) TMI 308 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR] - while interpreting the education cess levied under the excisable goods allowed rebate on cess though not covered under the notification for the relevant period - All contentions are left open - matter remanded back – Decided in favour of Petitioner. Issues:Claim for rebate of excise cess under the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984 rejected by the respondents based on the notification under the Central Excise Rules, 1944.Analysis:The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing automobile goods, exported goods and claimed rebate of excise duty and excise cess. The respondents allowed the rebate of excise duty but rejected the claim for rebate of excise cess under the impugned order. The main ground for rejection was that the claim did not fall within the scope of Explanation I to the notification under the Central Excise Rules, 1944.The petitioner argued that the levy of cess under the Automobile Cess Rules should be considered under the definition of 'duty' in the Central Excise Act, as the Act and Rules cover the manner of levy, collection, and refund of both duty and cess. The petitioner relied on legal precedents to support this argument, including judgments from the Supreme Court and the Rajasthan High Court.On the other hand, the respondents contended that since the Automobile Cess Rules were not explicitly mentioned in the notification under the Central Excise Rules, the impugned order was lawful. They also highlighted the distinct purposes of levying duty and cess, suggesting that allowing refund of duty and levying cess serve different objectives.The High Court observed that a comprehensive reading of the notification under the Central Excise Rules and the Automobile Duty Rules indicated that the procedures for levying, collecting, and refunding duty were equally applicable to the Automobile Excise Cess. The Court noted that this crucial aspect was overlooked in the impugned order.Furthermore, the Court referenced a similar situation where the Rajasthan High Court had allowed a rebate on cess for education under excisable goods, even though it was not explicitly covered by the relevant notification. This view was upheld by the Supreme Court in a specific case. The Court criticized the Joint Secretary for not considering these relevant precedents while passing the impugned order.Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Joint Secretary for reconsideration within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the need for a lawful review considering all relevant legal aspects.