TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (6) TMI 800
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... referred as Cess) under Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 @ Rs. 45.55 Paise per quintal on that much quantity of Sugar cleared which falls short of export quota fixed for the manufacturer. 2. The appellants removed 25,000 qtls. of sugar for exports on payment of duties during 20-9-01 to 16-10-01. Cess @ Rs. 14/- per qtl. Only was paid at the time of removal. However, proof of exports was not furnished as goods were not exported. The appellants paid the differential Cess (Rs. 45.55 minus Rs. 14.00) per qtl. on 25,000 qtls. of sugar, total amounting to Rs. 7,88,750/- on 4-4-06. 3. The appellant was served a notice proposing recovery of interest on delayed payment of cess as also for imposition of penalty. The original adjudica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erest cannot be confirmed. He further submitted that identical provisions in case of Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 were under consideration in case of Collector of C.E., Ahmedabad v. M/s. Orient Fabrics P. Ltd. as reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. 545 (S.C.) and it was held that when the breach of the provisions of the Act is penal in nature, the constitutional mandate requires a clear authority of law for imposition for the same. Such authority has to be specific and explicit and expressly provided. Accordingly, by taking note of an identical sub-section in the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, the Hon'ble High Court observed that the said provisions do not provide any po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A 1944 is not a penal provision but a provision for collection of the duty. The provisions of Section 11AB shall apply with full force for recovery of Cess leviable under the Act of 1958. The stand of the appellant is rejected as: (i) Statute specifically provides for application of the provisions of the Act of 1944. (ii) The stand of the appellant would lead to inequitable results." 6. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. Sub­-section (4) of Section 7 of the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1958) is to the following effect : "(4) The provisions of the [Central Excise Act, 1944] (1 of 1944) and the rules made thereunder, including those relating to refu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that when the breach of the provision of the Act is penal in nature or a penalty is imposed by way of additional tax, the constitutional mandate requires a clear authority of law for imposition for the same. Article 265 of the Constitution provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. The authority has to be specific and explicit and expressly provided. The Act created liability for additional duty for excise, but created no liability for any penalty. That being so, the confiscation proceedings against the respondents were unwarranted and without authority of law." 9. Hon'ble High Court in their above judgment, further referred to Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of M/s. Khema & Co. (Agencies) P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es committed prior to the date of introduction of said Section. What emerges from the above discussion is that for confirmation of interest a specific power and jurisdiction is required in the authorities. Such provisions cannot be made applicable on the principles of equity. If that be so, the interest would have been leviable even prior to the introduction of Section 11AB. For confirmation of interest, power and jurisdiction is required to be drawn from the provisions of the Act or Rule under which it is being adjudicated. 11. When viewed in the light of declaration of law by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of M/s. Pioneer Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Orient Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. referred supr....