2009 (12) TMI 681 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Refund claim for payment of cess on the goods exported Held that - Exemption from payment of cess on the goods exported is available only to EOU s and as Dunsandle Factory is not declared as a 100% EOU the exemption is not available rebate on cess paid under Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976 is not allowed - revision application is rejected as being devoid of merit

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection for payment of cess on exported goods; Interpretation of exemption for EOU under Notification No. 42/2001-C.E.; Applicability of Section 37B Order No. 60/01/2006-CX; Cess levied under Tea Cess Act, 1953; Duty of excise under different Acts; Exemption from payment of cess on exported goods; Refund claim admissibility; Interpretation of Circular No. 60/01/2006-CX; Applicability of Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002; Exemption notification requirement for cess; Classification of duty under Central Excise Rules; Rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The revision application was filed against the rejection of a refund claim for payment of cess on exported goods. The appellant argued that the exemption for payment of cess on exported goods is not limited to 100% EOU. They cited provisions of the Tea Act and Central Excise Rules to support their claim. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) rejected the claim, stating that no exemption notification was issued by the Ministry of Commerce. The appellant contended that the Tea cess is a duty of excise and should be treated similarly for refund purposes. They also presented a notification exempting tea produced in India and exported by export-oriented units from cess payment. The appellant highlighted the intention of Circulars to make duty incidence nil on exports and argued that no separate exemption notification is required for cess. The Government observed that the Tea cess is levied under the Cess Act, 1982, and deliberated on the interpretation of duty under different statutes. They emphasized the statutory requirement for explicit provisions referring to levy under central law. The Government found that the Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) does not cover cess under the Tea Cess Act, which is a special legislation benefiting the tea industry workers. They also referenced Circulars clarifying duties under Finance Acts and the applicability of rebates to different cesses. The Government cited a previous case where rebate on cess was not allowed, supporting the Commissioner's decision that cess is leviable on all clearances without an exemption notification. Consequently, the revision application was rejected for lacking merit.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of refund claim rejection, interpretation of exemption for EOU, applicability of different Acts, exemption from cess payment, Circular interpretations, duty classification, rebate under Central Excise Rules, and the necessity of exemption notifications for cess. The judgment provides a comprehensive examination of legal provisions, notifications, and precedents to support the decision to reject the revision application.