2019 (12) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT

Area based exemption - Recovery of refund of Refund of NCCD on the ground that exemption was not permissible under the notification for the units located in the State of Sikkim - Binding nature of Circular issued by the CBEC (CBIC) - appellant submitted that NCCD, education cess, and secondary and higher education cess form part of the excise duty - manufacture of Indian Mouth Freshener - Levy of education cess, higher education cess, and National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) - Notification dated 17.2.2003 - N/N. 71/2003 dated 9.9.2003

HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that when initial exemption notification was issued in 1997 for the North-Eastern States, which was later on applied to the State of Sikkim on 9.9.2003. The benefits from payment of excise duty and additional excise duty were confined to the basic excise duty payable under the Acts of 1944, 1957 and 1978. There was no reference made to NCCD imposed under the Finance Act, 2001. Apart from that, when the notification came to be issued, the education cess and secondary and higher education cess, which came to be imposed by Finance Acts of 2004 and 2007, were not in vogue.

A Division Bench of this Court in SRD Nutrients Private Limited [ 2017 (11) TMI 655 - SUPREME COURT ] has considered the Finance Acts of 2004 and 2007, by which education and secondary and higher education cess were imposed. Under the Industrial Policy dated 1.4.2007 for the North Eastern States, the notification dated 25.4.2007, issued by the Central Government, came up for consideration before this Court.

In Bajaj Auto Limited [2019 (3) TMI 1427 - SUPREME COURT] 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 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 Limited, [1986 (8) TMI 60 - SUPREME COURT], dealing with the similar issue, was not placed for consideration before this Court when the abovementioned decisions came to be rendered.

This Court in Modi Rubber Limited (supra) has considered the purport of the notifications and the specific provisions mentioned therein and held that exemption has to be considered in the light of provisions of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as envisaged under Rule 2(v) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. It cannot, in the circumstances, bear an extended meaning to include special excise duty and auxiliary excise duty.

Merely reference to the source of power is not enough to attract the exemption and what exemption has been granted to be read from the notification issued therein. This Court has further laid down that in case notification granting exemption issued under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 without reference to any other statute, the exemption must be read as limited to the duty of excise payable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It cannot cover such special or another kind of duty of excise.

Notification dated 9.9.2003 issued in the present case makes it clear that exemption was granted under Section 5A of the Act of 1944, concerning additional duties under the Act of 1957 and additional duties of 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 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 notification issued under the Finance Act, 2001.

The Circular of 2004 issued based on the interpretation of the provisions made by one of the Customs Officers, is of no avail as such Circular has no force of law and cannot be said to be binding on the Court. Similarly, the Circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs in 2011, is of no avail as it relates to service tax and has no force of law and cannot be said to be binding concerning the interpretation of the provisions by the courts.

Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.