2023 (9) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ervice Tax regime, but in view of the Notification dated June 30, 2017 and judgments of the Supreme Court in Bajaj Auto Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. [2019 (366) ELT 577(SC)] and Hero Motocorp Ltd vs. CCECU [2019 (366) E.L.T 807(SC)], the said duty would be exempted on the tobacco products. The refund claimed by the appellant has, accordingly, been allowed. 2. Case has been called out but no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent though Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned authorized representative appearing for the department has appeared. The order-sheet reveals that despite service of notice upon the respondent, the respondent has not been appearing on the last previous occasions. It is, therefore, considered appropriate to deci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urisdictional Superintendent, by a letter dated 18.03.2019, requested the respondent to deposit NCCD. The respondent submitted that it was not required to deposit NCCD but it also deposited the amount under protest for the months from May 2018 to March 2019. The respondent also deposited interest on the delayed payment of NCCD. The amount of NCCD paid for March and April 2018 is Rs. 67,01,613/- while an amount of Rs. 3,88,47,392/- was paid towards NCCD for the months of May 2018 to March 2019. 5. Subsequently, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bajaj Auto, the respondent claimed refund of the amount of NCCD paid with interest. 6. The adjudicating authority found that the refund claimed for the months of March and April 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....27. In Bajaj Auto Limited (supra), a Division Bench of this Court considered the question of liability towards NCCD, education cess and secondary and higher education cess on manufacturing establishment which is exempted from payment of central excise duty under the Act of 1944. The matter arose from the State of Uttarakhand; an Office Memorandum dated 7-1-2003 was issued, by which 100 per cent outright excise duty exemption for ten years was granted from the date of commencement of the commercial production. Notification dated 10-6-2003 issued under Section 5A has been reproduced in the decision mentioned above. 28. The Division Bench of this Court has rendered both the above decisions. The most unfortunate part is that the bindin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act of 1944, concerning additional duties under the Act of 1957 and additional duties o excise under the Act of 1978. It was questioned on the ground that it provided for limited exemption only under the Acts referred to therein. There is no reference to the Finance Act, 2001 by which NCCD was imposed, and the Finance Acts of 2004 and 2007 were not in vogue. The notification was questioned on the ground that it should have included other duties also. The notification could not have contemplated the inclusion of education cess and secondary and higher education cess imposed by the Finance Acts of 2004 and 2007 in the nature of the duty of excise. The duty on NCCD, education cess and secondary and higher education cess are in the nature of ad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....016) 15 SCC 289], The decision rendered in ignorance of a binding precedent and/or ignorance of a provision has been held to be per incuriam in Subhash Chandra & Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. [(2009) 15 SCC 458], , Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra [(2014) 9 SCC 129], and Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2010 (254) E.L.T. 196 (S.C.)]. It was held that a smaller bench could not disagree with the view taken by a Larger Bench. 43. Thus, it is clear that before the Division Bench deciding SRD Nutrients Private Limited and Baja Auto Limited (supra), the previous binding decisions of three-Judge Bench in Modi Rubber (supra) and Rita Textiles Private....