Supreme Court rules on liability for National Calamity Contingent Duty & exemption notification The Supreme Court addressed the liability of the assessee to pay National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) and the applicability of an exemption ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Supreme Court rules on liability for National Calamity Contingent Duty & exemption notification
The Supreme Court addressed the liability of the assessee to pay National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) and the applicability of an exemption notification. Referring to a previous decision, the Court confirmed that NCCD is akin to excise duty and falls under the exemption notification. It clarified that the appellant had not abandoned this argument before the High Court. The Court overturned the High Court's decision against the assessee, directing all appeals to be allowed based on the precedent. Additionally, the Court ordered the refund of the penalty amount, noting compliance with deposit requirements.
Issues: Liability to pay National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) and applicability of exemption notification.
In the judgment, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the liability of the assessee to pay National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD). The Court noted that the legal position regarding NCCD had been settled in a previous decision titled Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Union of India, where it was held that NCCD is in the nature of excise duty and entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. The Court clarified that the appellant had not given up this plea before the High Court, as contended by the respondent-Department. The Court emphasized that the High Court's view against the assessee had been specifically reversed in the Bajaj Auto Limited case. Consequently, the Court held that all the appeals should be allowed in terms of the judgment in the Bajaj Auto Limited case.
Regarding the financial aspect, the Court mentioned that an interim stay had been granted in respect of the penalty amount as per an interim order dated 19.03.2018. It was noted that the other amounts had been deposited as required. Therefore, the Court ordered that the amount paid to the Department should be refunded back within a maximum period of two months from the receipt of the order. Finally, the Court concluded by stating that the appeals were allowed in accordance with the aforementioned decisions and orders.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.