TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 599
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax, Mumbai (Appeal No ST/174/2012) held as follows: "ORDER i. I hereby confirm the demand amount of Rs. 4,77,23,920/- (Rupees Four Crore Seventy Seven Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Only) under Section73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. ii. Recover of interest at the appropriate rate applicable during the relevant period of time, on the amount confirmed at i) above, from the date it became due till the date of payment, is hereby confirmed under Section75 of the Finance Act, 1994. iii. Penalty of Rs. 200/- per day or 2% of tax payable, per month whichever is higher, starting with the first day after the due date till the date of actual payment of the outstanding amount of service tax, is imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, subject to the maximum, specified in Section76 of the Finance Act, 1994 as it existed at the material time, for failure to pay appropriate service tax. iv. For failure to obtain Registration for Advertisement Service as required under Section69 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 a penalty of Rs. 5000/- or Rs Two Hundred everyday during which such failure....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vi. A penalty of Rs. 7,94,292/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two Only) i.e. equal to the amount of Service Tax short paid by the assessee, under Section78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further if the assessee pays the demand amount confirmed as per i) above along with the interest payable thereon as per ii) above within thirty days from the date of communication of the Order, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by the assessee shall be 25% of the demand amount confirmed at i) above, provided further that the reduced penalty is also paid along with the confirmed amount and interest as mentioned above." 1.4 By the order in appeal dated 22.03.2012, Commissioner (Appeals) IV Central Excise Mumbai Zone - I, (Appeal No ST/466/2012) upheld the order in original dated 22.05.2009 of the Assistant Commissioner Service Tax Division IV Mumbai rejecting the refund claims filed by the appellant. By his order Assistant Commissioner has held as follows: "7. In light of the findings as above, I reject all the five refund applications filed by M/s Neeta Tours and Travels, on 17.10.2008 as detailed below, under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 73 (1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.6 They paid the service tax amounting to Rs. 2,86,94,534/- (Rupees Two Crore Eighty Six Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Four Thousand Only) only for the period 2005-06 and 2006-07 along with interest due amounting to Rs. 22,02,791/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One Only). 2.7 For the period 01.04.2007 onwards though they had provided tour operator service (point to point bus service) (upto 05.07.2009), tour operator services (Chartered Bus Service) (upto 31.03.2010) and advertisement services (upto 31.03.2010) they had not filed ST-3 returns in respect of the services provided nor have paid any service tax in respect of these services rendered. 2.8 After completion of investigations a show cause notice dated 23.08.2010 was issued to the appellants demanding service tax payable and not paid by them during the period as indicated below: S No Taxable Service Period Service Tax Demanded' Rs From To 1 Tour Operator (Point to Point) Apr 07 05.07.2009 4,42,99,945 2 Tour Operator (Chartered Bus) Apr 07 31.03.2010 33,70,305 3 Advertisem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 20/2009-ST from that date onwards. vi. Retrospective exemption as per notification no 20/2009-ST from 01.04.2000 in respect of point to point transportation has been held applicable in case of Rishabh Travels [2012 (17) Taxmann.com 3 (Tribunal -Delhi)] vii. In respect of Chartered Bus Services the possession and control of the Bus is passed on to the recipient of services, and in terms of Article 366 (29A)(d), such transactions could be subject to levy of taxes under entry 54 of State List has been held by the following decisions; a. Krishna Chandra Behera and Another [1991 (083) STC 0325 ORI] b. Sri Ram [2009 (020) VST 0747 (ALL)] c. HLS Asia Ltd [2007 (8) VST 314 (Gauhati)] d. Peerless Shipping and Oilfield Services Ltd [2007 (008) VST 030 (Gauhati)] viii. Reliance placed on Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd [(2002) 3 SCC 314] is not proper as the appellants have transferred the possession and control of the said buses to the customer and once transferred they were excluded from transferring the same to someone else. Hence the test laid by the Apex Court in case of BSNL [(2006) 3 STT 245 (SC)] has been satisfied ix.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion is part and parcel of the main notification. When the notification has been given retrospective effect, the obvious conclusion is that corrigendum too has been given retrospective effect. [Polyplex Crop Limited [2014 (306) ELT 37 (ALL)] • The issue was also clarified in their favour Ministry of Finance (RU) vide DOF No 334/3/2011-TRU dated 28.02.2011. Such clarification should be given due weightage as held in Kajaria Ceramics Limited [2005 (191) ELT 20- (SC)] • In respect of 26 Contract carriages with them in para 68 of the impugned order Commissioner has observed that they have not proved that they have satisfied the condition No 12 of the license issued to them. There is no such allegation in the show cause notice hence Commissioner has travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice. • Further he has failed to establish that these contract carriages were used under a contract for fixed set of passengers and the vehicle has not been used for tourism, conducted tours, charter or hire services. They had produced a Certificate No TC/MS/D-1/Misc/2012 dated 10.02.2012 from transport Commissioner Maharastra, that the permits issued to the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f interpretation of statutory provisions. They had not collected the service tax from their customers and maintained regular book of accounts in usual manner. Hence, no penalty could have been imposed in terms of Section 80 [Flyingman Air Courier (P) Ltd [2004 (170) ELT 417 and Gamma Consultancy (P) Limited [2006 (4) STR 591 (T)] • They rely on all the grounds taken by them in the appeal filed. 4.3 Arguing for the revenue learned Authorized Representative submitted that- • The appellants are providing taxable services under the category of "Tour Operator Services" in as much as they are operating "Contract Carriages" for interstate and intrastate transportation of passengers on point to point to point basis. • The issue raised in the present appeal are squarely covered by the following decisions: • Secy Federn of Bus Operators Assn of T N [2006 (2) STR 411 (MAD)] • A P State Road Transport Corporation [2018 (8) GSTL 441 (T-Hyd)] • Alok Prakash [2018 (8) GSTL 266 (ALL)] • V K Rakesh, R R Travels [2016-TIOL-1706-HCKer- ST] • Hans Travels [2016 (42) STR 94 (T-Del)] •....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... carriage permit, they are covered by the definition of tour operator. Since during the relevant period the services provided by them were taxable and not exempted, order of Commissioner confirming the demands against the appellant cannot be faulted with. • Appellants have provided tour operator services (Chartered Bus Services) in respect of these services provided there is no dispute with regard to leviability of service tax and no exemption is also available. In fact appellants have been collecting service tax from their clients in respect of these services but were not paying the same to government account. • Appellants had been providing the advertisement services in as much as they allowed the advertisements to be displayed inside their buses against the charges for displaying the same. Such services of displaying the advertisement clearly fall under the taxable category of sale of space or time for advertisement services and hence liable to service tax. • Extended period of limitation has been rightly invoked as appellants have during the material period not filed any service tax returns. In fact they were filing the returns earlier but....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passengers who were undertaking journey from one place to another irrespective of the distance between such places. In other words, the passengers were touring in the buses of the assessees. These buses were "tourist vehicles" within the meaning of this term defined under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Indisputably, the assessees were engaged in the business of operating "tours" in tourist vehicles covered by permits granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the rules made thereunder. As they were running the buses on predetermined routes in scheduled hours under such permits, they can be held to have undertaken the business of planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours. In other words, the assessees are squarely covered by the main part of the definition of "tour operator" under Section 65(115) of the Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 10-9-2004. We note that the meaning of "tour operator" assigned by Parliament prior to 10-9-2004 continued on the statute took as it stood incorporated in the inclusive part of the definition of "tour operator" from 10-9-2004. The assessees who were engaged in the business of operating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice). However, CESTAT in that case remanded the matter with the following words : - "10. However, their alternative plea for the benefit of Notification No. 20/2009-S.T., dated 7-7-2009 read with corrigendum dated 31-8-2009 merits consideration. The said Notification granted full exemption from payment of service tax on the taxable service referred to in Section 65(105)(n) of the Finance Act, 1994, provided by a tour operator having contract carriage permit or tourist vehicle permit for inter-State or intra-State transportation of passengers, excluding tourism, conducted tours, charger or hire services. Parliament extended the exemption retrospectively upto 1-4-2000 vide Section 75 of the Finance Act, 2011. Prima facie, all the assessees before us are entitled to the benefit inasmuch as the impugned demands are for the period from April, 2000. The adjudicating authorities will have to examine their claim for exemption on merits, untrammelled by our prima facie view." It is to be noted that in the above (Ideal Travels) case, CESTAT categorically stated that the adjudicating authority was to examine the applicability of Notification No. 20/2009-S.T., dated 7-7-2009 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... right to use' was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Vs M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (2002) 3 SCC 314. In this case, the respondent, owners of Visakhapatnam Steel Project, allotted different works to contractors for the purpose of their steel project. They undertook to supply sophisticated machinery to the contractors for the purpose of being used in execution of the contracted works and received charges for the same. The appellant made provisional assessment levying sales tax on hire charges under Section 5-E of the AP VAT Act. The respondent filed a Writ Petition seeking declaration that the tax levied by the VAT Authorities was illegal and unconstitutional. In para 3 while examining the question as to when a transaction would amount to transfer of right to use goods, the Hon'ble Court upheld the decision of High Court of Andhra Pradesh and observed as under: a ..... that the transaction did not involve transfer of right to use the machinery in favour of contractors. The High Court was right in arriving at such conclusion. In the impugned order, it is stated, and rightly so in our opinion, that the effective c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the union. Transfer of right to use any goods can be treated as deemed sale and chargeable to VAT only if there is legal transfer of possession and effective control whereas in the instant case there is no legal transfer of right of possession and effective control and therefore it is a service and is chargeable to service tax." 5.6 The argument advanced by the appellants have been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of Secy Federn of Bus Operators Assn of TN [2006 (2) STR 411 (Mad)]. Hon'ble High Court of Madras held as follows: "80. Mr. Chandrasekaran, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents contended and in our opinion rightly that from the language of entry 56, which entry was being pressed into service by Mr. Prakash, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the tax had to be directly on the passengers carried by the road. In the present case, such is not the position. Learned Counsel pointed out that the petitioners were trying to fix the nature of the tax on the basis of its "measure". Mr. Chandrasekaran argues that in reality the argument in respect of entry 56 is based on the language of Section 67(m) and (n). He points ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 56". From the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 28 of Karthikeyan case, it is clear that the present tax, which is a tax on service, is entirely "distinct and independent" and cannot be covered by entry 56. 81. We have already held that this tax, in so far as it pertains to the "rent-a-cab scheme operators" or "tour operators", cannot come under "profession, trade or calling". In that behalf, we rely on the celebrated decision of the Apex Court in Federation of Hotels and Restaurants case, cited supra. 82. In Federation of Hotels and Restaurants case, cited supra, the Apex Court was considering the "legality" and "legislative competence" of the tax levied by the Parliament on the "expenditure". The impugned Act was "Expenditure Tax Act, 1987" which envisaged a tax at 10% ad valorem on the chargeable expenditure incurred in the class of hotels wherein the room charges for any unit of residential accommodation are four hundred rupees or more per day per individual. The term "chargeable expenditure" was defined by Section 5 of that Act and included the expenditure incurred in or payments made in such class of hotels in connection with the provisions of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind any merits in the submissions made by the appellants with regard to taxability of the services rendered by them under the category of "Tour Operator Services" Admissibility of Exemption Under Notification No 20/2009-ST as amended by the corrigendum dated 31.08.2009. 5.7 Notification No 20/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 ,as amended by Notification No GSR 622(E) Dated 31.08.2009 is reproduced below: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the taxable service referred to in sub-clause (n) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, provided or to be provided to any person, by a tour operator having a [contract carriage or tourist vehicle with a permit ]^1 for inter-state or intrastate transportation of passengers, excluding tourism, conducted tours, charter or hire service, from whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the said Finance Act." 5.8 Explaining the intent of Notification, JS(TRU), has vide his letter issued v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has some mistake and admitting this mistake the same is being rectified/corrected and hence a correction/corrigendum. 8. Normally the word "corrigendum" is used when correction is made in a printed matter which has already disclosed to public and, therefore, mere handwritten correction or draft or finalized matter would not be sufficient but correction as such has to be notified separately and that is how it is termed corrigendum. 9. The meaning of "corrigendum" is "an error to be corrected especially an error in print". The word "corrigenda" is used in a list of corrections of errors in a book or other publications. The origin of the word "corrigendum" is said to be from Latin from the phrase, "neuter of corrigendus, gerundive of corrigere to correct". 10. In various dictionaries also the word "corrigendum" has been defined. 11. In "Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary" Seventh Edition at page 343 word "corrigendum" is defined "something to be corrected, especially a mistake in a printed book". 12. In "The Concise English Dictionary", 1982 Edition, page 253 meaning of "corrigendum" is "an error needing correction, esp. in a book". ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt statute relates back to the time when the prior Act was passed [See Attorney General v. Pougette - (1816) 2 Price 381 = 146 ER 130]" 20. It is true that an exemption notification must be given a strict meaning. [See Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2005) 4 SCC 272 and on Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Mahaan Dairies, (2004) 11 SCC 798 = 2004 (166) E.L.T. 23]. But here it is not the case of application of an exemption notification itself but the effect of corrigendum notification issued in respect of an earlier exemption notification admitting apparent omission therein necessitating the issuance of correction/corrigendum notification. Therefore, principle applied herein would be different." 5.11 Thus taking note of fact that, the rectification in the Notification was made by issue of a corrigendum issued and also the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court referred in para 5.10, supra we are of the view that exemption has been granted in respect of services provided by the "contract carriage or tourist vehicle with permit" in respect of the services specified in the said notification from the date of effect of notific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his DOF No 334/3/2011-TRU dated 28.03.2011, which is also the part of budget documents in para 12.7 stated as follows: "12.7 Exemptions with retrospective effect have been given by the Finance Bill: (a) .......; and (b) To inter-state or intra-state transportation of passengers, in a vehicle bearing contract carriage and tourist vehicle permit for the period from 01.04.2000 to 06.07.2009" 5.14 In our view the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill 2011 and JS(TRU-II) D.O letter clearly bring out the intention of the Section 75 of the Finance Act, 2011. The intention was to extend the benefit of exemption retrospectively in respect inter-state or intrastate transportation of passengers, in a vehicle bearing contract carriage and tourist vehicle permit for the period from 01.04.2000 to 06.07.2009. 5.15 Same view has been expressed by the tribunal in series of judgment referred to by the appellants and sated by us in para 4.2, supra. 5.16 Commissioner in para 66 to 68 of his order after examining the definition of "Contract Carriage" has observed as follows: "66. Thus, the essential ingredient of a contract carriage is that it should be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eward only under contract expressed or implied for the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage only as defined under the Act and except for a reasonable cause no intending passengers shall be refused to be carried." Also they have failed to prove that the vehicles are used as contract carriages under a contract for a fixed set of passengers and the vehicle has not been used for tourism, conducted tours, Charter or hire service. Thus under the circumstances I have got no option but to reject the assessee's claim and hold that the exemption is not available to the Tourist Vehicles with a permit to operate as TOURIST BUS assessee is liable to pay service tax on the Point to Point Bus Service as mentioned in the show cause notice." 5.17 Then artificial distinction sought to be drawn by the Commissioner in his order is contrary to express intention of the Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994. Thus the order of Commissioner to this extent cannot be upheld. 5.18 In respect of the Services provided in category of Chartered Bus Booking, we find that these services fall within the exclusion category in the said notification. No other exemption has been pointed out which exempts s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x to be demandable in that category. Clearly Commissioner has travelled beyond the show cause notice. Since no demand has been made in the show cause notice under this category we are not in position to sustain the order of Commissioner in this respect. 5.21 Thus in view of our discussions as above while we are in agreement with the demands made in respect of Chartered Bus Services, we do not find any merits in the order of Commissioner in respect of demands under other two categories. Limitation, Interest and Penalty: 5.22 Now coming to the issue of Limitation. In respect of the demands made under the category of Chartered Bus Services, we do not find there was any legal dispute or the issue of interpretation. Further in Commissioner has in para 84 (v) of his order referred to statement of Shri Sunil Savia and stated "v. the had collected Service Tax from their customers from 2009 onwards on the Chartered Bus provided by them under tour operator's services but had not made the payment of Service Tax in the government account, which they shall make immediately after calculating the same." Further in para on the basis of scrutiny of various documents and statement of Shri S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m, under appropriate service category), Section 70 (their failure to file ST-3 Returns) and Section 73(A) for not depositing the Service Tax collected by the assessee from their clients with the Government Treasury." 5.23 We do not find any merits in the submissions made by the appellant against the order of Commissioner, in respect of limitation, interest and penalties. We only observe that the these charges can now be sustained only in respect of the demands which can be sustained on merits i.e. in respect of the Chartered Bus Services. Appeal No ST/466/2012 and Cross Objections ST/CO/112/2012 6.1 Appellants had filed five refund claims as detailed in table below claiming the refund of service tax paid by them during the period for which the refunds have been filed. S No Period Date of Filing Date of Payment Amount' Rs 1 2002-03 17.10.08 16.08.06, 17.10.06, 17.10.06 7,94,291/- 2 2003-04 17.10.08 22.07.04, 16.10.06, 17.10.06, 17.10.06, 17.10.06 43,39,305/- 3 2004-05 17.10.08 26.07.04, 25.10.04, 12.07.05, 19.07.05, 20.07.05, 26.07.05,05.08.05, 25.08.05 46,69,028/- 4 2005-06 17.10.08 02.12.05, 17.12.05,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected service tax from the passengers, and the payments for the period 2002-03 to 2006-07 were made under protest and subsequent to the amount received from service receiver and hence the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable to them. ii. The learned Appellate Authority has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating the submission of the appellant wherein is has been stated that the refund claims were premature and therefore to keep the matter in abeyance till the application of refund claim filed in pursuance of Section 75 of FA, 2011 before Assistant Commissioner, Div-IV, Service Tax - II Mumbai. iii. The refund claim filed in pursuance of Section 75 of FA, 2011 has been rejected by Assistant Commissioner, Div-IV, Service Tax II, Mumbai vide Order in Original No ST-II/DN-IV/277-R/2012 dated 15/03/2012 and the appellant has filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal)-IV, Central Excise against the said OIO on 25/04/2012. iv. The appellant submits that, the grounds of Appeal in the above said appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeal)- IV, Central Excise on 25/05/2012 are reiterated in the present appeal also. v. The appellant submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to October, 2007 without collecting the same from the customers. Thereafter, the appellants filed 5 refund claims as the service tax was paid under protest. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 22.05.2008. Being aggrieved, the appellant had filed appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on 25.08.2009. The said appeal has been recently allowed vide order in appeal dated 28.04.2016 holding that the appellant is entitled for benefit of exemption under Notification No 20/2009-ST. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given detailed finding on the said issue at Para 10 to Para 15 thereof. The said refund claim was filed under section 75(2) of the Finance Act, 2011. The said order has been accepted by Committee of Commissioners vide F No V/ZST-VI/Hq/TRb/OIA Acceptance/16-17 dated 23.08.2016 (refer serial No 9 thereof). Pursuant to the same vide order in original no ST-VI/Mum/R-242/2016-2017 dated 30.11.2016, the refund of Rs. 4,18,19,478/- has been sanctioned to the appellant. The said order has also been accepted as there is no appeal. The said order have become final. Hence a different stand cannot be taken by the department." Nothi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which such goods are to be sold. 12B. Presumption that incidence of duty has been passed on to the buyer. - Every person who has paid the duty of excise on any goods under this Act shall, unless the contrary is proved by him, be deemed to have passed on the full incidence of such duty to the buyer of such goods. 12C. Consumer Welfare Fund. There shall be - (1) established by the Central Government a Fund, to be called the Consumer Welfare Fund. There shall be credited to the Fund, in such manner as may (2) be prescribed, - The amount of duty of excise referred to in sub-section (2) (a) of section 11B or sub-section (2) of section 11C or subsection (2) of section 11D; The amount of duty of customs referred to in sub-section (2) (b) of section 27 or sub-section (2) of section 28A, or sub-section (2) of section 28B of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962); any income from investment of the amount credited to the (c) Fund and any other monies received by the Central Government for the purposes of this Fund. 12D. Utilisation of the Fund Any money. - (1) credited to the Fund shall be utilised by the Central Government for the welfare of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reunder or any other law for the time being in force, no refund shall be made except as provided in sub-section (2)". Sub-section (2), it may be mentioned, provides the circumstances in which and the grounds on which a refund shall be made, or shall be denied, as the case may be. It is necessary to emphasise that the exclusivity of these provisions relating to refund - and conversely the bar to other proceedings created by them - is specific to the subject of refund and is apart from and in addition to the general bar implicit in the Act or expressed in some of its other provisions, as the case may be. Because the Act creates new rights and liabilities and also provides the machinery for assessment and adjudication of those rights and liabilities, a bar to the jurisdiction to civil court arises by necessary implication - an aspect dealt with at some length later. [Also see Principle No. 3 enunciated in Kamala Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay [1966 (1) S.C.R. 64] dealt with in Paras 30 to 33.] The point to be stressed is that the exclusive nature of the refund provisions expressly declared in Rule 11 and Section 11B, at all points of time, is an express and specific one contained in a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sly states that pending applications for refund made before the commencement of the 1991 (Amendment) Act shall be deemed to have been made under sub-section (1) of Section 11B as amended in 1991 and that the same shall be dealt with in accordance with sub-section (2). Subsection (2) provides that only in situations specified in Clauses (a) to (f) therein will the refund be granted to the applicant; in all other cases, the amount will be credited to the Fund established under Section 12C. Sub-section (3) declares that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in (a) any judgment, decree, order or direction of the Appellate Tribunal or any Court or (b) any other provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder or (c) any other law for the time being in force, no refund shall be made except as provided in sub-section (2). Subsection (1) of Section 11D too opens with a non obstante clause. It provides for making over of excise duty, realised by a person from his buyer, to the Central Government forthwith. Sub-section (2) says that duty so paid shall be adjusted against the duty payable by him on finalisation of assessment. The sub-section further says that if on such adjustm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn but the loss occurs not because of the levy of the excise duty - which is uniformly levied on all manufacturers of similar goods - but for other reasons. No manufacturer can say with any reasonableness that he cannot survive in business unless he collects the duty from both ends. The requirements complained of (prescribed by Section 11B) is thus beyond reproach - and so are Sections 12A and 12B. All that Section 12A requires is that every person who is liable to pay duty of excise on any goods, shall, at the time of clearance of the goods, prominently indicate in all the relevant documents the amount of such duty which will form part of the price at which the goods are to be sold, while Section 12B raises a presumption of law that until the contrary is proved, every person who has paid the duty of excise on any goods shall be deemed to have passed on the full incidence of such duty to the buyer of such goods. Since the presumption created by Section 12B is a rebuttable presumption of law - and not a conclusive presumption - there is no basis for impugning its validity on the ground of procedural unreasonableness or otherwise. This presumption is consistent with the general patte....