AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1522
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), Primary Education Cess, ("PED Cess"), PWD Road Cess, ("Road Cess"), Asansol Mines Board of Health Cess ("Health Cess"). On the ground that these components are not excludible, the Dept issues 11 periodical Show Cause Notices for the period March 2011 to June 2017. After due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority passed 6 Orders-in-Original, confirming the Excise Duty and interest thereon along with penalty. Being aggrieved by the impugned Orders-in-Original, the appellant has filed the present Appeals before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant takes a preliminary stand towards the delayed adjudication and passing of the Orders in Original, on the following grounds : 2.1 At the outset, it is submitted that recently on 25.11.2024 the Principal Bench of Hon'ble CESTAT at New Delhi in the case of Kopertek Metals Pvt Ltd vs. Com of CGST, New Delhi (Final Order no. 59511-59720 of 2024 in Excise Appeal no. 52178 of 2022) has held that where the adjudication orders have not been passed within the timeline as prescribed in Section 11A(11) of the CEA, the same cannot be legally sustained. 2.2 The provisions contained in Section 11A(11) requires th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adjudication proceedings had relied on the Hon'ble Seven Judges judgment of the Supreme Court in India Cement Limited v State of Tamil Nadu, (1990) 1 SCC 12 ("India Cement") to contend that Royalty is the nature of "tax" and therefore not includible in transaction value. The Appellant further submitted that SED is recovered as a "duty of excise" and therefore not includible in transaction value. Further, all other levies on which demand has been raised were in the nature of "tax" and hence not includible. It was submitted during the adjudication proceedings that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements (supra) wherein it was held that royalty is a tax was pronounced by a Seven Judges Bench whereas the judgement in Kesoram Industries was pronounced by a Five Judges Bench and therefore the Larger Bench judgment in India Cement's case would be binding on all the authorities below. 3.4 The Ld. Commissioner in his adjudication orders observed that Royalty and other levies are not "taxes" and therefore includible in the transaction value. With respect to Royalty, reliance has been placed by the Ld. Commissioner on the judgment of Hon'ble Five Judges Bench o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is submitted that this judgment was pronounced on 30th March 2011 (before the issuance of the SCN's impugned in the present appeals) and duly noted that a Bench of smaller quorum, if it doubts the judgment of the Bench of Larger quorum, it has to request the Chief Justice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to place the matter before a Larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration and doubted. 3.8 The Ld. Adjudicating Authority neither considered the judgment in case of Mineral Area Development Authority and Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 450 nor the judgment of judgment of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v State of Maharashtra, (2005) 2 SCC 673 relied therein. 3.9 In Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community (supra), the Five Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained in detail the course available to the Smaller Bench of the Supreme Court in case it doubts the view taken by the Larger Bench. The relevant observations made in Para 12 of the judgment are reproduced hereinunder: 12. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the parties and having examined the law laid down by the Constitution Benches in the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the principle of judicial discipline and held that any notice issued by an Authority signifying the launching of proceedings contrary to the law laid down by the High Court would be invalid and the proceedings themselves would be without jurisdiction. The relevant observations made in Para 31 are reproduced hereunder: Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act can be invoked only if an order issued under s. 3 of the Act was infringed during the course of the import or export. The division Bench of the High Court held that a contravention of a condition imposed by a licence issued under the Act is not an offence under s. 5 of the Act. This raises the question whether an administrative tribunal can ignore the law declared by the highest court in the State and initiate proceedings in direct violation of the law so declared. Under Art. 215, every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Under Art. 226, it has a plenary power to issue orders or writs for the enforcement of the fundamental rights and for any other purpose to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, he is bound to obey the law declared by this court. The apex court of the country in no uncertain terms held that the law declared by a High Court is binding on all subordinate courts and Tribunals within the territory to which it exercises the jurisdiction. In Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 618 (SC), the Income-tax Officer (subordinate authority) refused to carryout clear and unambiguous directions of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (superior authority). Deprecating it, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed (page 622): "Such refusal is in effect a denial of justice, and is furthermore destructive of one of the basic principles in the administration of justice based as it is in this country on a hierarchy of courts. If a subordinate Tribunal refuses to carry out directions given to it by a superior Tribunal in the exercise of its appellate powers, the result will be chaos in the administration of justice...." 3.14 In this context they rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in M/s United Sprits Limited v State of Maharashtra, W.P. (Lodging) No 10092 of 2020 pronounced on 29th April 2022 reported in 2022 SCC Online Bom 941. The i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(supra) and this Court in a case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Maharashtra State Vs. M/s Radhasons International (supra) took different view much later, on the basis of such different view taken subsequently the assessing officer could not press in service the later judgment. We are respectfully bound by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Ram Bai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). 3.15 The Appellant submits that based on the advice of Coal India Limited, the holding company of the Appellant, the differential excise duty amounting (including Edu Cess and SHE Cess) was paid under protest on the value pertaining to 'Royalty' and 'Stowing Excise Duty' for the prior period from March 2011 to February 2013 and thereafter from March 2013 excise duty was being regularly paid on royalty and SED, reflected in the excise invoices and such duty was reported in monthly ER-1 returns but under protest. 4. Submissions on observations made in the impugned Order w.r.t. SED 4.1 Stowing Excise Duty (hereinafter referred to as "SED") is levied under The Coal Mines (Conservation and Development) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "CMCD Act"....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....putation of excise duty. 5. Submissions on RE Cess, PE Cess and PED Cess, Road Cess being included in computation of Transaction Value 5.1 The Appellant is collecting above levies from their buyers on account of 'Rural Employment and Production Cess', Primary Education Cess', 'PWD Road Cess' and 'Asansol Mines Board of Health Cess' which are not included in the transaction value for the purpose of assessment and payment of Central Excise Duty. 5.2 'Rural Employment (RE Cess) and Production Cess (PE Cess) is collected at specific rate on the annual value of 'coal bearing land' under the provision of West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976. 5.3 'Primary Education Cess' (PED Cess) is collected at specific rate on the value of 'coal bearing land' under the provision of West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973'. 5.4 The PWD Road Cess (Road Cess) is collected under the Cess Act 1880. 5.5 The appellant submits that RE Cess, PE Cess and PED Cess, Road Cess are all State levies legislated by the Government of West Bengal under the taxing powers conferred by Entry 49 and Entry 50 of State List under Schedule VII o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....78 (SC) on 25.07.2024. 5.8 In view of the above submissions, we submit that the demand of excised duty on RE Cess, PE Cess, PED Cess and Road Cess is not sustainable in law. 6 Submissions on 'Asansol Mines Board of Health Cess' 6.1 The 'Asansol Mines Board of Health Cess' (Health Cess) is collected under West Bengal Mining Settlement (Health and Welfare) Act, 1964. 6.2 AMBH Cess (Health Cess) is charged @ Rs 1/- per ton as per provisions is laid down under Section 23(2)(i) of West Bengal Mining Settlements (Health & Welfare) Act, 1964, which extends to the whole of West Bengal as per Section 1(2) of the Act. It is a statutory levy which is collected from the customers on coal sales bills and deposited with state Government and is liable to be considered as classified under "other taxes". 6.3 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kesoram supra has held that Taxes on mineral rights lie within the legislative competence of the State Legislatures "subject to" any limitation imposed by Parliament of Law, relating to mineral development. 7. Without prejudice to above submissions, it is further submitted that there is no case for invocation of extended period of limi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-75507 / 2020 10.03.2014 31.07.2020 6 years 4 months 24.03.2014 31.07.2020 6 years 4 months 11.03.2014 31.07.2020 6 years 4 months 25.03.2014 31.07.2020 6 years 4 months 23.12.2015 31.07.2020 4 years 7 months 16.03.2016 18.03.2016 31.07.2020 31.07.2020 4 years 4 months 4 years 4 months 04.02.2016 31.07.2020 4 years 5 months 02.02.2016 31.07.2020 4 years 5 months 04.02.2026 31.07.2020 4 years 5 months 14.08.2014 31.07.2020 5 years 11 months 14.08.2014 31.07.2020 5 years 11 months 14.08.2014 31.07.2020 5 years 11 months 14.08.2014 31.07.2020 5 years 11 months 23.04.2014 31.07.2020 6 years 3 months 14.08.2014 31.07.2020 5 years 11 months 26.09.2014 31.07.2020 5 years 10 months 8.4 Above table unmistakably shows that inordinate delay has not occurred in respect of most of the above appeals. Even, in many cases, the timeline of Section 11A (11) of the CEA was strictly followed. 8.5 The Hon'ble Beach should have referred the matter in M/s Kopertek Metals Pvt. Ltd to a larger bench only after acknowledging disagreement with their own orders. Accordingly, the decision in Kope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2020 dt. 31.07.2020 5,35,68,495 Yes 11 E- 75507 of 2020 26.09.2014 March, 2011 to Feb, 2013 5,53,09,019 22-39/Central Excise/Pr. Commr/RAN/2020 dt. 31.07.2020 5,53,09,019 Yes Grand Total 6,47,61,23,304 11. As per the appellant, the ratio laid down in the case of Kopertek Metals Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST - Final Order No.59511-59720/2024 dated 25.11.2024, is required to be applied in case of most of the adjudicated SCNs. By doing so, the confirmed demand in respect of 8 or 9 SCNs would get set aside on this count / ground alone and only the confirmed demands in respect of the balance 3 or 2 SCNs would be required to be taken up for deciding the appeals on merits. 12. It would be important to go through the relevant portions of the Kopertek Metals Final Order, which are extracted below : Kopertek Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST (West) - FINAL ORDER NO. 59511-59720/2024 dated 25.11.2024 7. Sub-section (11) of section 11A, was thrice amended, and is reproduced, as it stood during the relevant period: From 28.04.15 to 13.05.2015 11A(11) The Central Excise Officer shall determine the amount of duty of excise under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from 28.04.2015, where it was possible to do so. The discussion and findings in the impugned order start from paragraph 117 but no reason has been given in the impugned order by the Adjudicating Authority for not being able to determine the duty within the stipulated period of one year from the date of issuance of the show cause notice. 20. It would be seen from the aforesaid judgment of the Delhi High Court in Swatch Group that the High Court made it amply clear that the incorporation of words like "where it is possible to do so" merely give a certain degree of flexibility to the department where there are circumstances or insurmountable exigencies which make it impracticable or not possible for the authorities to adjudicate, and in such cases the authorities can deviate from the time limit provided in the Statute. The High Court further held that when the legislature has specifically provided flexibility only to the extent that it was not practicable/possible to adjudicate within the stipulated time, the period can be extended only on satisfaction of such circumstances. The Delhi High Court specifically observed that the phrase "where it is possible to do so" would only mean w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the matter would be decided ex parte even if no cause is shown within thirty days. It appears that it is only on 07.09.2016 i.e. almost after a period of five months after the expiry of one year that the first hearing was fixed by the Adjudicating Authority on 07.09.2016. 42. The aforesaid discussion would lead to the inevitable conclusion that the impugned order would have to be set aside only for the reason that the adjudication was not completed within the time limit prescribed under sub-section (11) of section 11A of the Central Excise Act. 13. We find that similar matter in respect of Adjudication order in respect of Customs was before the Delhi High Court in the case of VOS Technologies India Pvt Ltd Vs The Principal Addl Director General decided vide Judgement dated 10.12.2024. 74. The meaning to be ascribed to the phrase "where it is possible to do so" was lucidly explained in Swatch Group. As the Court observed on that occasion, while the aforesaid expression did allow a degree of flexibility, it would have to be understood as being concerned with situations where the proper officer may have found it impracticable or impossible to conclude proceedings. Swatch Grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of cases falling under sub-section (1); (b) within one year from the date of notice, where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5). Customs Act 1962 : Section 28 (9) :The proper officer shall determine the amount of duty or interest under sub-section (8),- (a) within six months from the date of notice, where it is possible to do so in respect of cases falling under clause (a) of sub- section (1); (b) within one year from the date of notice, where it is possible to do so in respect of cases falling under sub-section (4). Customs Act 1962 Section 128A(4A) The Commissioner (Appeals) shall, where it is possible to do so, hear and decide every appeal within a period of six months from the date on which it is filed. Excise Manual (CBEC - Supplementary Instructions) CHAPTER - 13 DEMAND NOTICE/SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, ADJUDICATION, INTEREST, PENALTY, CONFISCATION, SEIZURE, DUTY PAYMENT UNDER PROTEST 4. Time limit for issue of adjudication orders: [Top] The demands on account of short levy, non-levy or erroneous refund, by reason of fraud collusion, willful mis-statement or suppression of facts shall be adjudicated wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. When the challenge is laid to the act of the authorities deviating from the rule, the onus shifts on the authority to prove that it was not practicable or possible to follow the rule. The same is to be adjudicated on the facts and circumstances of each case." 17. In the Kopertek Metals Pvt Ltd.[Kopertek for short], decided by the Principal Bench - Delhi Tribunal, it has been held that non adjudication of the order, with no reason being given to the effect that the order could not be passed on time due to circumstance beyond control, the same would be fatal to the legality of the order. In VOS judgement, cited supra the Delhi High Court has also held so and has noted that the delay is required to be viewed from the facts of the case. As per these decisions, when the reason for delay is not explained by way of plausible reasons in the Order in question, it fails to prove that "it was not possible to pass the authority" within the time-frame. 18. The Revenue countering the claim of the appellant that Kopertek Metals case should be applied, has taken the stand that in that case, the delay in passing the Order in Original was very high whereas the delay in case of the OIOs passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed. We find that only by of amendment brought by Finance Act 2014 (with effect from 6.8.2014), the Section 73 (4B), was inserted to specify the timeframe for adjudication of the Service Tax matters. Hence, there was no time-frame applicable for Adjudication of the SCN issued in 2011. The appellant had only made a normal reference towards the delay without citing any statutory provisions or the case laws. In that context the decision was rendered by the Tribunal. 22. In the case of Citicorp, again the issue is that of Service Tax demand. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 23.04.2012. Therefore, even in this case, on the date of issue of SCN, the statutory provision with regard to the time-frame to complete the Adjudication had not come into force. The Adjudicating authority had confirmed demand holding that appellant has not appeared for Personal Hearing nor have they filed any reply. This was properly countered by the appellant before the Tribunal showing evidence of having filed the replies and also appearing for the Hearing. They raised the additional point about the delay in completion of the adjudication proceedings. The Tribunal did not negate this claim. But considering th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 28.05.2019 04/COMMR/BOL/19-20 dt. 26.06.2019 10 E- 75506 of 2020 14.08.2014 March, 2011 to Feb, 2013 Yes First PH 30.07.2020 (adjn prayed) PH provided after 6 yrs. First Adjn also rejected & order passed next day 22-39/Central Excise/Pr. Commr/RAN/2020 dt. 31.07.2020 11 E- 75507 of 2020 26.09.2014 March, 2011 to Feb, 2013 Yes First PH 30.07.2020 (adjn prayed) PH provided after 6 yrs. First Adjn also rejected & order passed next day 22-39/Central Excise/Pr. Commr/RAN/2020 dt. 31.07.2020 25. In the OIOs there is nothing to indicate that the appellant has in any way delayed the proceedings necessitating the Adjudicating authority to delay the passing of the order at his end. From the above Table we also find that in some cases, the Personal Hearings were given after the Six month to two years period. Considering the factual matrix, we take the view the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Kopertek Metals, would be squarely applicable. Accordingly, in respect of SI Nos. 1,2,4,6,7,9, 10 and 11 of the above Table [Appeal Nos. E/75694/2015, E/75695/2015, E/75911/2016, E/75060/2018, E/75061/2018, E/77239/2019, E/75506/2020, E/75507/2020.] we apply the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Excise reported in (2003) 3 SCC 599 = 2003 (153) ELT 14(SC) has taken the view that in a case in which a show cause notice has been issued for the earlier period on certain set of facts, then, on the same set of facts another SCN based on the same/similar set of facts invoking the extended period of limitation on the plea of suppression of facts by the assessee cannot be issued as the facts were already in the knowledge of the department. It was observed in para 14 as follows: "14. We have indicated above the facts which make it clear that the question whether M/s. Pharmachem Distributors was a related person has been the subject-matter of consideration of the Excise authorities at different stages, when the classification was filed, when the first show cause notice was issued in 1985 and also at the stage when the second and the third show cause notices were issued in 1988. At all these stages, the necessary material was before the authorities. They had then taken the view that M/s. Pharmachem Distributors was not a related person. If the authorities came to the conclusion subsequently that it was a related person, the same fact could not be treated as a suppression of fact on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Department has not brought any of those facts on record. Therefore, the Department cannot now urge that findings of the Collector that that Show Cause Notice was on a similar issue and for an identical amount is not correct." 9. Allegation of suppression of facts against the appellant cannot be sustained. When the first SCN was issued all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities. Later on, while issuing the second and third show cause notices the same/similar facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as these facts were already in the knowledge of the authorities. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgments and respectfully following the same, hold that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the assessee/appellant. 29. We find that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable in the present case in respect of Appeal No.E/75696/2016, SCN dated 31.07.2014 issued for the period April 2013 to March 2014. We hold that the confirmed demand for the extended period is legally not sustainable and we set aside the same and allow the appeal to this extent on account of time bar itself....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bench of India Cements and 5 Member Bench of Kesoram, which resulted in the matter being referred to the 9 Member Bench for a final decision, which came to be pronounced in 2024. The appellant submits that the Revenue is in error in issuing the SCN based on the 2004 decision of Kesoram, which had no jurisdiction to over-rule the 7 Member decision of the India Cements. As per the appellant, with no Stay being granted, the India Cements decision was very much prevailing when the appellants adopted the AV by excluding the Royalty since India Cements judgement held that Royalty in a "Tax". 33. Prima facie, the argument of the appellant is quite attractive and also seems to be logical, since they have followed the prevailing decision during the period under dispute for arriving at the Assessable Value. We also agree that Kesoram judgement could not have found fault with the India Cements decision, since the quorum at Kesoram was less than that of India Cements case. Admittedly, this anomaly was noticed in the MADA judgement rendered by a 3 Member Bench, in 2011 who recommended constitution of 9 Member Bench. This 9 Member Bench has finally held that the Royalty is not a "Tax". Thus as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hold that the Royalty component is required to be added to arrive at the Assessable Value. This would be applicable in respect of the Sl No.3 [Appeal No. E/75696/2015], Sl No.5 [Appeal No. 75912/2016] and Sl No.8 [Appeal No.75062/2018] of the above Table. The appeal in respect of these three appeals is dismissed in respect of Excise Duty on Royalty component. 36. Now we come to the component of the Stowing Excise Duty. The appellant has claimed that it is a "Duty of Excise". The relevant portion of the Nov. Coal Mines (Conservation and Development) Act, 1974 [CMD Act for short] 6. Imposition of excise duties - (1) With effect from the appointed day there shall be levied and collected on all coke raised and dispatched, and on all coal manufactured and dispatched, from the collieries in India, such duty of excise, not acceding Rupees ten per tonne as may be fixed from time to time by the Central Government by notification, and different rates of duty may be levied on different grades or description or coal or coke." 7. Imposition of customs duty - During the period in which any duty of excise is being levied under section 6, the Central Government may, by notification, impos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous cesses like Rural Employment & Production Cess ("RE Cess" and/or "PE Cess"), Primary Education Cess, ("PED Cess"), PWD Road Cess, ("Road Cess"), Asansol Mines Board of Health Cess ("Health Cess"). These are being paid to various agencies as per the rates specified under the respective statutes. In the present case, one of the major issue was that of Royalty. Therefore, it would be relevant to go through the relevant portions to these Supreme Court's decisions : India Cement Ltd vs State Of Tamil Nadu Etc. on 25 October, 1989 Civil Appeal No. 62 (N) of 1970 etc. The 7 Member Bench as under : In any event, royalty is directly relatable only to the minerals extracted and on the principle that the general provision is excluded by the special one, royalty would be relatable to entries 23 & 50 of list II, and not entry 49 of list II. But as the fee is covered by the Central power under entry 23 or entry 50 of list II, the impugned legislation cannot be upheld. Our attention was drawn to a judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Miscellaneous Petition No. 410/83--M/s Hiralal Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., which was delivered on 28th March, 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y covered by Entry 49 in List II. Assuming it to be a tax on mineral rights it would be covered by Entry 50 in List II. Taxes on mineral rights lie within the legislative competence of the Stats Legislature "subject to" any limitation imposed by Parliament by law, relating to mineral development. The Central legislation has not placed any limitation on the power of the States to legislate In the field of taxation on mineral rights. The challenge to constitutional validity of State legislation is founded on non-availability of legislative field to State; it has not been the case of any of the writ petitioners that there are limitations enacted by Central legislation and the State of West Bengal has breached or crossed those limits. Simply because incidence of tax is capable of being passed on to buyers or consumers by the mine owners with an escalating affect on the price of the coal, it cannot be inferred that the tax has an adverse effect on mineral development. Entry 23 in List II. speaks of regulation of mines and mineral developments, subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union. The Central Legislation has taken ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no case on merits for the appellants for not including the Royalty component for arriving at the Assessable Value. But this judgement also comes to the rescue of the appellant so far as the Cess issue is concerned. Since Royalty has been held not to be "tax", the States are competent to levy Cess, which is also a tax, as held in India Cements Case cited supra. In the 9 Member judgement of MADA, there is nothing to suggest that Cess is not a "Tax" and the entire decision is confined to the issue as to whether "Royalty" is "tax or not" and as to whether the State is eligible to impose Cess on Royalty. So far as other cesses are concerned, there is nothing to suggest that they have been litigated as not being "tax" by nature at any other forum. No judicial pronouncement has been brought to our notice taking the contrary view in respect of the cesses. 41. Therefore, after harmoniously reading the above decisions, and applying the ratio thereon, we take the view that the Cesses are also a kind of tax imposed by the State Govt / Central Govt. Hence, the Cesses would meet the requirement of Section 4 (3) (d) under the category of other taxes, if any, actually paid or actually payable on....