2005 (8) TMI 432 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rebate claim of Education Cess prior to a specific notification.
2. Interpretation of Education Cess levy and eligibility for rebate under Rule 18.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of a part rebate claim of Education Cess paid before a specific notification. The lower authority sanctioned the rebate claim of Central Excise Duty on exported goods but rejected the Education Cess claim, citing the notification's retrospective effect. The appellate authority, however, found that Education Cess was levied as per the Finance Bill, 2004, and the subsequent notification clarified that it was eligible for rebate under Rule 18. The authority highlighted that Education Cess was provisionally collected before the enactment of the Finance Bill, 2004, and any distinction between provisional and post-enactment collection for rebate purposes was unwarranted. The appellate authority concluded that the lower authority misinterpreted the levy proposal and relevant provisions, thus setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

2. The appellate authority emphasized that Education Cess was proposed in the Union Finance Budget, 2004, and was provisionally collected until the Finance Bill's enactment. The authority clarified that the notification merely included Education Cess under the term 'duty' for rebate eligibility under Rule 18. By referencing the clauses in the Union Finance Budget, 2004, and the existing provisions, the authority determined that denying rebate on Education Cess paid on exported goods was unfounded. The appellate authority deemed the impugned order unsustainable due to the misinterpretation of the levy proposal and notification's effect, ultimately allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellants.