Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Pasupati Fabrics Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 March, 2003

M/S.Mrf Limited vs Union Of India on 23 December, 2011

In the decision reported in 2004 (165) ELT 35 (Del), in the case of Pasupati Fabrics Ltd., Vs. Union of India, a decision relied on by the petitioner, while considering the textile cess levied under Section 5A of the Textiles Committee Act, 1963 on 100% Export Oriented Unit, the Delhi High Court held that merely because the words "duty of excise" are used in Section 5A of the Textiles Committee Act, the same would not mean that what is charged is the excise duty. Holding that one has to see the real nature of the levy under Section 5A of the Act, the Delhi High Court pointed out that what is prescribed therein is the imposition of cess and it is not the same excise duty which is sought to be charged all over again. Thus it held that the nature of levy is fee and not excise duty. Moreover, excise duty is leviable specifically under Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. However, the Delhi High Court held that for the purpose of grant of exemption, when the duty levied under the Textiles Committee Act, 1963 does not have the character of excise duty and what is charged is only a fee, the question of exemption from payment of cess for Export Oriented Units does not arise. Thus the exemption given under the Central Excise Act would not entitle the petitioner therein to an exemption under Section 5A of the Textiles Committee Act, 1963 on its 100% Export Oriented Units.
Madras High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 12 February, 2007

...that the provision of Central Excise Act, 1944 and rules made thereunder including those relating to refund of duty, so far as may apply in relation to the levy and collection of the cess as they apply in relation to the levy and collection of duty of excise on manufacture of automobile under the Act and Rules". It was argued that once the provision of Central Excise Act, 1944 relating to levy and collection of duty of excise apply to collection & levy of cess, it has to be held that both levy and collection of education cess is under Central Excise Act & Rules only. Referring to the learned D.R.'s reference to the Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Delta Jute & Industries Ltd. wherein it was pointed out by the learned D.R. that Section 3(4) of the Jute Cess Act, 1983 making the provision of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 in relation to the levy in collection of duty on jute manufactures under this Act, does not create a legal fiction by which the duty was imposed by Section 3 is treated as if it was the duty imposed under the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 it was submitted that this decision is not relevant as in this case the assessee was a 100% exported oriented unit and were exempt from payment of basic excise duty under a notification issued under Sect on 5A of the Central Excise Act and the assessee argued that the duty that has been imposed under 1983 Act is nothing but an additional excise duty and is also therefore exempted under the notification issued under Section 5A, the court held that cess leviable under the Jute Cess Act, 1983 is not duty levied under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and is therefore not covered by the exemption notification issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act. The argument that it was surcharge on the main tractors was also rejected on the fact of that case. Similarly the decision in the case of Pasupati Fabrics Ltd. v. UOI cited by learned S.D.R. in which it was held that merely because words "duty of excise" are used in Section 5A of the Act would not mean that what is charged is the excise and that cess had traces of fee and was not tax which is charged under Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1