https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202137 Notification No. 34/2001-C.E. was construed on the settled statutory meaning of "excise duty", which did not extend to education cess or higher education cess levied under the Finance Act, 2004 and the Finance Act, 2007. The later Notification No. 38/2007-C.E. and the Board circular could not enlarge the scope of the earlier exemption notification. The phrase "in full discharge of liability" was read as applying only to duty computed under the notification scheme, not to cesses or other levies under separate enactments. Refund was therefore not admissible on the basis that education cess and higher education cess formed part of excise duty. en-us Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202137 Notification No. 34/2001-C.E. was construed on the settled statutory meaning of "excise duty", which did not extend to education cess or higher education cess levied under the Finance Act, 2004 and the Finance Act, 2007. The later Notification No. 38/2007-C.E. and the Board circular could not enlarge the scope of the earlier exemption notification. The phrase "in full discharge of liability" was read as applying only to duty computed under the notification scheme, not to cesses or other levies under separate enactments. Refund was therefore not admissible on the basis that education cess and higher education cess formed part of excise duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202137