Tax credit certificate interpretation turns on whether excise duty payable means duty actually paid or merely leviable.

The article discusses two tax-credit issues under the Income-tax Act: first, whether the special duty of excise under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1965 was a separate levy or a surcharge on excise duty; and second, whether "duty of excise payable" for Sections 280ZD and 280ZE means duty actually paid or duty leviable under the Excise Act. It notes that the first issue was covered by binding precedent treating the levy as already determined against the taxpayer, and that the second was resolved by applying the principle that an exemption notification has statutory force, so no distinction remained between duty leviable and duty payable for the tax credit scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the special duty of excise imposed by Section 80 of the Finance Act 10 of 1965 was a distinct duty or merely a surcharge on excise duty leviable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; (ii) Whether, for the purposes of tax credit certificate under Section 280ZD and Section 280ZE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the duty of excise payable meant excise duty actually paid or excise duty leviable under the Excise Act.

Issue (i): Whether the special duty of excise imposed by Section 80 of the Finance Act 10 of 1965 was a distinct duty or merely a surcharge on excise duty leviable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The question was treated as already covered by the binding decision of the Court in Associated Cement Company Ltd. v. Director of Inspection, Customs and Central Excise, which had answered the nature of the levy against the appellant.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether, for the purposes of tax credit certificate under Section 280ZD and Section 280ZE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the duty of excise payable meant excise duty actually paid or excise duty leviable under the Excise Act.

Analysis: The High Court had followed the Court's earlier ruling that an exemption notification operates as if enacted as part of the statute, and on that basis no distinction survived between excise duty leviable and excise duty payable for the purposes of the tax credit certificate provisions.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on both questions and were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing precedent treats an exemption notification as having statutory force, no distinction can be drawn between duty leviable and duty payable for the statutory tax-credit scheme.

---