2004 (5) TMI 90 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to rebate on cess paid under the Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976.
2. Interpretation of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001.
3. Applicability of CBEC Circular No. 641/32/2002-CX., dated 26-6-2002.
4. Precedent cases and their relevance to the current issue.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Rebate on Cess Paid under the Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976:
The core issue is whether the cess paid under the Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976, should be allowed as a rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. The appellant argued that the cess levied under the Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act is a "duty of excise" and should be eligible for rebate. However, the judgment clarified that the cess under this Act is distinct and not automatically included under the general provisions for excise duty rebates. The ruling emphasized that explicit statutory provisions or notifications are required to extend such benefits to the cess.

2. Interpretation of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001:
Rule 18 allows the Central Government to grant a rebate of duty paid on exported goods or materials used in their manufacture. The judgment noted that Rule 18 does not directly provide for rebates but empowers the government to issue notifications specifying conditions for such rebates. The applicability of Section 3 and 3A of the Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act was discussed, indicating that these sections make the enabling provisions of the Central Excise Act applicable to the cess. However, it was highlighted that any notification granting rebates must explicitly refer to the relevant central law, which was not done in this case.

3. Applicability of CBEC Circular No. 641/32/2002-CX., dated 26-6-2002:
The appellant cited the CBEC Circular, which clarified that the National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) is not payable on exported goods as it is a duty of excise. The judgment differentiated between NCCD and the cess under the Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, stating that the specific clarification for NCCD does not apply to the cess. The cess is a special levy for the welfare of beedi workers and not a general revenue-augmenting duty.

4. Precedent Cases and Their Relevance:
The judgment referenced several precedent cases to support its conclusions. It cited the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's decision in Delta Jute & Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, which held that notifications granting exemptions under one act do not automatically apply to levies under another act unless explicitly stated. Similar principles were upheld in other cases like Raja Lakshmi Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and Agarpara Co. Ltd. v. Comm. of Central Excise. These cases underscored the necessity of explicit statutory references for exemptions and rebates, reinforcing the judgment's stance.

Conclusion:
The Revision Application was rejected based on the detailed legal analysis, affirming that the cess under the Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act does not qualify for a rebate under the existing notifications and rules. The judgment emphasized the need for explicit statutory provisions or notifications to extend such benefits to specific levies like the cess in question.