Exclusion from Sabka Viswas Scheme requires actual exigibility to central excise, not mere Fourth Schedule listing.

Mere inclusion of lubricants in the Fourth Schedule to the Central Excise Act did not, by itself, trigger the exclusion in Section 125(1)(h) of the Sabka Viswas Scheme where no positive rate of duty was shown. The court read "excisable goods" in light of the charging scheme and held that goods carrying a nil or blank duty entry are not on the same footing as goods actually exigible to central excise. Because the exclusion clause was ambiguous, it was construed in favour of the assessee, and the rejection of the settlement application was unsustainable. The petitioner was therefore entitled to seek settlement under the Scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether lubricants falling in the Fourth Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944, but carrying no positive rate of duty, were excluded from the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 under Section 125(1)(h).

Analysis: Section 125(1)(h) excludes declarations only in respect of excisable goods set forth in the Fourth Schedule. The expression "excisable goods" was construed in the light of the charging scheme under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the requirement that a taxable levy must be real and workable. Goods merely mentioned in the Schedule, but shown with a blank or nil rate of duty, do not stand on the same footing as goods carrying a positive duty rate. The Scheme is a dispute-resolution measure intended to reduce pending litigation, and any ambiguity in the exclusion clause must be resolved in favour of the assessee. The departmental clarification and the circular supported the view that only goods still actually subject to central excise, such as specified petroleum products and tobacco, were intended to be kept of the Scheme.

Conclusion: The exclusion in Section 125(1)(h) did not apply to the petitioner's lubricants, and the rejection of the settlement application was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection order succeeded, and the petitioner was held entitled to seek settlement under the Scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of the Scheme, mere inclusion of a commodity in the Fourth Schedule is insufficient to attract the exclusion in Section 125(1)(h) unless the commodity is actually exigible to central excise at a positive rate of duty.

---