Cce, Allahabad vs M/S.Bajaj Hindustan Sugar & Industries ...
- CitationAppeal No. E/2945/2011-EX[DB]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Education cess under section 93 of the Finance Act, 2004 is chargeable only on excise duties that are both levied and collected by the Central Government through the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue); a cess levied under an Act not administered by that Ministry, and merely collected by the Department of Revenue under that Act, is not such a duty and cannot be included in the base for computing education cess.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA No.197/CE/APPL/ALLD/2011 dt.26.9.11 passed by Commissioner of CCE (Appeals), Allahabad)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 26.05.2015
For approval & Signature:
Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Honble Smt.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes
CCE, Allahabad Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Bajaj Hindustan Sugar & Industries Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Present for the Appellant: Shri M.S.Negi, AR
Present for the Respondent: Shri P.K.Mittal, Advocate
Coram: Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Honble Smt.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Final Order No.51796/2015
Per: RAKESH KUMAR
The only issue in this appeal is whether for the calculation of education cess, sugar cess collected under Sugar Development Fund Act, 1982 is to be included in the Central Excise duty.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the sugar cess is not to be taken into consideration while calculating the education cess. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue is in appeal.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Both sides agree that the issue stands decided in favour of the respondent by the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2008 (232) ELT 61 (Tri.-Ahmd.) and Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2008 (221) ELT 105 (Tri.-Chennai) and also the judgement of Honble High Court in the case of Indo Farm Tractors & Motors Ltd. vs. UOI reported in 2008 (222) ELT 184 (HP) wherein it has been held that education cess under section 93 of the Finance Act, 2004 is chargeable only on the duties of excisable levied and collected by the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue). Both sides also agree that in terms of Boards circular No.978/2/2014-CX dt.7.1.2014 cess levied under an Act which is not administered by Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) but is only collected by the Department of Revenue under the provisions of that Act, cannot be treated as a duty which is both levied and collected by the department of Revenue. In view of this, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The Revenues appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(dictated & Pronounced in the open court)
(Sulekha Beevi C.S.) (Rakesh Kumar)
Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
mk
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free