2026 (5) TMI 795

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the demand of duty amounting to Rs.4,94,549/- along with interest and penalty. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a private limited company inter alia engaged in the manufacture of aerated water, soda, packaged drinking water and fruit juice-based drinks falling under Chapter 22 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 1.1 The Union Government in Budget 2014 vide Clause 110 read with Ninth Schedule to the Finance Bill, 2014, proposed to amend the Seventh Schedule of the Finance Act, 2005 to introduce levy of Additional Excise Duty (AED) on aerated waters of Chapter Sub-heading 2202 10. 1.2 W.e.f. 11.07.2014, the proposal under Clause 110 of the Finance Bill, 2014 was implemented vid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was issued to the appellant proposing to demand AED of Rs.4,94,549/- (including cess) on the goods lying in stock as on 11.07.2014 and already manufactured prior to 11.07.2014, along with interest and penalty. 1.7 Appellant filed reply to the show cause notice and contested the demand on various ground thereafter; by following the due process, the Additional Commissioner(A) confirmed the demand by it's order dated 27.02.2017. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....also submits that in the case of one of the franchisees of the appellant, M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. v. CCE, Lucknow reported in 2023 (11) TMI 145 wherein, Division Bench of CESTAT Allahabad relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. reported in 1996 (83) ELT 3 (SC) and decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee. 3. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record as well as decision relied upon by the both the sides. 4.1 The only issue involved in the present case is whether Additional Excise Duty (AED) is leviable on goods already man....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the Finance Act 2005 were announced on 10.7.2014 and it was understood by the Appellant that the same shall be effective from midnight 10/11 July 2014. It is relevant to mention that the declaration under Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 provided that clause 110 of the Bill shall have immediate effect under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931. 8. We find that the issue is no longer res-integra and is settled by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Hyderabad Vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company Ltd reported in 1996 (83) ELT 3 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with special duty of excise has held that "Section 3 cannot be read as shifting the levy from the stage of manufacture or prod....