9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 50 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of Additional Excise Duty (AED) imposed by the Finance Act 2014 on pre-budget stock as in existence at the time of introduction of the levy - appellant contends as per settled law AED being a new levy they could not be called upon to pay AED on such stocks as were in existence prior to the introduction of the same - HELD THAT - The issue with regard to collection of a fresh levy on pre-budget stock/stock manufactured and produced before imposition of the levy has long been settled by a slew of cases. Even the CBEC vide letter D.O.F. No.334/1/2003-TRU (Pt.) dated February 28 2003 and TRU Letter F.No.345/2/2004-TRU (Pt.) dated August 10 2004 had clarified that the new levy imposed will not be attracted on pre-budget stock in view of the judgement of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CCE Hyderabad vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co.Ltd. 1996 (2) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT . The said position was reiterated by the Hon ble Apex Court vide its decision in the case of Ponds India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise Madras 1997 (1) TMI 77 - SUPREME COURT . Following the aforesaid ruling of the Apex Court various High Courts and the Tribunal have in a slew of cases accordingly held that any fresh levy introduced is not applicable to goods manufactured prior to the introduction of the levy. Conclusion - The appellant cannot be fastened with Additional Excise Duty (newly imposed for the first time) on stocks of finished goods that were already in existence at the time of introduction of the said levy and were only awaiting clearance. The levy of duty on goods is fastened only as a consequence and the fact of their manufacture when the said levy is in vogue its collection having been deferred till the time of removal of the said goods from the factory. The impugned order being contrary to law is required to be set aside - Appeal allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are: (a) Whether the Additional Excise Duty (AED) imposed by the Finance Act, 2014 on aerated waters containing added sugar or sweetening matter applies to stocks of such goods manufactured and held in inventory prior to the imposition of the levy; (b) Whether the levy of AED can be demanded on pre-budget stock existing as on the midnight of July 10/11, 2014, the date of introduction of the levy; (c) The applicability and interpretation of settled legal principles and precedents regarding fresh excise levies imposed on goods already manufactured before the levy's commencement; (d) The binding nature of Board circulars and internal instructions clarifying the non-applicability of new levies on pre-budget stock; (e) The relevance and applicability of conflicting judicial pronouncements cited by the Revenue in support of their demand. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (a) & (b): Applicability of Additional Excise Duty on Pre-Budget Stock The legal framework governing the levy is the Finance Act, 2014, which introduced a 5% Additional Excise Duty on aerated waters containing added sugar or sweetening matter, effective from midnight of July 10/11, 2014. The appellant had stocks of such goods manufactured prior to this date and contended that AED cannot be levied on these pre-existing stocks. The Tribunal referred extensively to the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case concerning Special Excise Duty (CED) in CCE, Hyderabad vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. The Apex Court held that the levy of excise duty is on the manufacture or production of goods, and the stage of removal is only the stage for collection, not the taxable event itself. The Court emphasized that if a levy did not exist at the time of manufacture, it cannot be imposed later at the time of removal. The relevant excerpt states: "We are of the opinion that Section 3 cannot be read as shifting the levy from the stage of manufacture or production of goods to the stage of removal. The levy is and remains upon the manufacture or production alone. Only the collection part of it is shifted to the stage of removal... insofar as the goods manufactured or produced prior to March 1, 1978 are concerned, the said rule cannot apply for the reason that there was no levy of special excise duty on such goods at the stage and at the time of their manufacture/production." Further, the Apex Court stated: "Once the levy is not there at the time when the goods are manufactured or produced in India, it cannot be levied at the stage of removal of the said goods. The idea of collection at the stage of removal is devised for the sake of convenience. It is not as if the levy is at the stage of removal; it is only the collection that is done at the stage of removal." Based on these principles, the Tribunal concluded that the AED introduced in 2014 cannot be levied on stocks of aerated waters manufactured before the levy's introduction, even though the collection of duty is deferred until removal. The Tribunal also referred to subsequent High Court and Tribunal decisions that have consistently upheld this principle, including rulings that excisability and liability to duty apply only to goods manufactured after the introduction of the levy, and that pre-existing stocks are outside the scope of the fresh levy. Issue (c): Interpretation of Settled Legal Principles and Precedents The Tribunal relied heavily on the binding precedents of the Apex Court and subsequent authoritative clarifications issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). The CBEC had issued letters dated February 28, 2003, and August 10, 2004, explicitly clarifying that new levies do not apply to pre-budget stock, consistent with the Vazir Sultan ruling. The Tribunal found that the settled legal position is that the taxable event for excise duty is the manufacture or production of goods, and a levy introduced after manufacture cannot be retrospectively applied to goods already produced. Issue (d): Binding Nature of Board Circulars and Internal Instructions The Tribunal noted that the department is bound by its internal instructions and circulars issued by the Board. It emphasized that the department cannot decide cases contrary to these instructions or plead against them to justify demands inconsistent with Board directives. This principle was invoked to reject the Revenue's attempt to impose AED on pre-budget stock contrary to the Board's clarifications. Issue (e): Applicability of Conflicting Judicial Pronouncements The Revenue relied on the Apex Court decision in Union of India vs. H.M.M. Ltd. and the Gujarat High Court ruling in Anand Regional Co-Op. Oil Seeds Growers Union Ltd. vs. Union of India to support the demand. The Tribunal analyzed these decisions and found that neither pertained to the liability of duty on finished goods stocks already in existence prior to the imposition of a fresh levy. Consequently, these decisions were held not to be applicable to the facts of the present case. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held: "The appellant cannot be fastened with Additional Excise Duty (newly imposed for the first time) on stocks of finished goods that were already in existence at the time of introduction of the said levy and were only awaiting clearance. The levy of duty on goods is fastened only as a consequence and the fact of their manufacture when the said levy is in vogue, its collection having been deferred till the time of removal of the said goods from the factory." The Tribunal quashed the impugned order confirming the demand for AED on pre-budget stock as contrary to law and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. Core principles established include:
|
