Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2004 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (8) TMI 105 - SC - Central ExciseWhether by addition of the words "or under any other law for the time being in force" producers or manufacturers other than 100% EOUs incur a liability to pay AED? Held that:- A perusal of the un-amended Notification 8/97-C.E. and notification after amendment vide Notification No. 11/2000-C.E. shows that only the following words were inserted by way of amendment (i) introduction of the words "the aggregate of" after words "equal to" in the original notification (ii) introduction of the following words after "Section 3 of the Central Excise Act" in the original notification i.e. "or under any other law for the time being in force". That does not in any way create a liability on the 100% EOUs to pay AED. Notification No. 55/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 is in no way diluted so far as the manufacturers like the appellants are concerned, notwithstanding what has been provided in Notification No. 8/97-C.E. dated 1-3-1997 as amended by Notification No. 11/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000. As stated above, the only change is that under Notification 8/97-C.E., dated 1-3-97 the 100% EOUs were exempt from paying duty in excess of amount of BED paid by the producer or manufacturer who is not 100% EOU, whilst after amendment by Notification 11/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 the 100% EOU is exempt from paying duty in excess of amount of BED plus the amount of AED plus any other duties of excise under any other law for the time being in force, paid by the producer or manufacturer who is not 100% EOU. Thus, the view expressed in the Circular dated 19-12-2000 and view of the High Court are indefensible. The Circular afore-noted is, therefore, quashed. The High Court's judgment impugned in these appeals is set aside. Appeal allowed.
|