TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tification 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 decide this appeal on merits. 3. Section 136 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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 2018 was barred by limitation and for the remaining refund claim, held th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bility 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 binding decision of Larger Bench consisting of three-Judges of this Court in Union of India v. Modi. Rubber L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound 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 additional excise duty and it would not mean that exemption notification dated 9-9-2003 covers them particularly when there is no reference to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & 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 Limited (supra) were not placed for consideration. Thus, the decisions in SRD Nutrients Private Limited and Bajaj Auto Limited (supra) are clearly per incuriam. The ....