2014 (8) TMI 129 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules for Godfrey Philips on excise duty rate, grants stay on duty demand

M/s GODFREY PHILIPS INDIA LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, M/s Godfrey Philips India Ltd., regarding the applicability of the enhanced rate of excise duty on ... Enhancement in rate of duty on Cigarette - Amendment to proposal of Finance Bill 2012 after being introduced - Retrospective or prospective - penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that:- It is significant to note that the PCTA does not provide for recovery of any dues when the rates are amended upwards subsequent to the introduction of the bill. Therefore, prima facie, it can be viewed that any amendment resulting in increase in the rate of excise duty will not have any retrospective effect - Board has reviewed the clarification given earlier vide Circular No. 981/5/2014-CX dated 11.2.2014 after consulting the Ministry of Law & Justice and as per the revised clarification given in para 9 of the said circular 'the tariff rate of duty on cigarettes levied vide amendments in the Finance Act, 2012, shall be applicable from the date of enactment of the said Finance Act, i.e. 28.5.2012 and not from 17.3.2012 - appellant has made out a prima facie case for grant of stay - Stay granted. Issues:1. Applicability of enhanced rate of excise duty on cigarettes.2. Interpretation of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931.3. Consideration of retrospective effect of amendments in the Finance Bill, 2012.4. Grant of stay application against duty demand, interest, and penalty.Issue 1: Applicability of enhanced rate of excise duty on cigarettes:The case involved a duty demand against the appellant, M/s Godfrey Philips India Ltd., for an amount of Rs. 71,87,380/- along with interest and penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The dispute centered around whether the enhanced rate of excise duty on cigarettes, as per the Finance Bill, 2012 amendments, could be applied retrospectively from the date of introduction of the Finance Bill. The department contended that the amendment was retrospective, leading to a duty demand of Rs. 5,09,78,534/-. The appellant argued that the enhanced rate should be applicable only from the date of enactment of the Finance Act, i.e., 28.5.2012. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions and circulars to determine the correct applicability date of the enhanced duty rate.Issue 2: Interpretation of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931:The Tribunal examined the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 (PCTA) to understand the legal framework governing the immediate effect of provisions related to duty imposition or increase. Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the PCTA were crucial in determining the applicability and operation of declared provisions in the Finance Bill. The Tribunal highlighted that the PCTA did not authorize the recovery of dues when rates were amended upwards post the bill's introduction, indicating that such amendments might not have retrospective effect based on the Act's provisions.Issue 3: Consideration of retrospective effect of amendments in the Finance Bill, 2012:The Tribunal considered the argument presented by the appellant, emphasizing that amendments to the Finance Bill become operational only upon the bill's assent, supporting the view that the enhanced duty rate on cigarettes should apply from the date of enactment of the Finance Act. Reference was made to a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in a similar case to strengthen the appellant's plea for a stay against the duty demand. The Tribunal also reviewed Circular No. 334/1/2012-TRU, which clarified the applicability of revised rates specified in the Finance Bill, 2012, from a specific date.Issue 4: Grant of stay application against duty demand, interest, and penalty:After careful consideration of submissions from both sides and a thorough analysis of relevant legal provisions and circulars, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had established a prima facie case for the grant of a stay. Consequently, the Tribunal granted an unconditional waiver from the pre-deposit of the dues adjudged against the appellant and stayed the recovery process during the pendency of the appeal. The Tribunal also decided to tag the appeal with another case for final hearing.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI highlights the legal intricacies surrounding the applicability of enhanced excise duty rates, the interpretation of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, the consideration of retrospective effects of amendments in the Finance Bill, 2012, and the decision on the grant of a stay application against duty demand, interest, and penalty.