2006 (11) TMI 119 - HC - Central Excise

Tribunal confirmed demand on the Excise Duty chargeable on activity of cutting of marble blocks into marble slabs and also penalty u/s 11AC for removing goods without payment of Duty - SC held that impugned activity doesn t amount to manufacturing activity so levy of duty is ultra vires - since there was no authority under which the tax can be levied and collected, both parties were labouring under the mistake recovery of any outstanding sum is not sustainable.

Summary

Issues:
Levy and collection of Excise Duty and penalty in manufacturing of marble slabs.

Analysis:
The dispute in this case revolves around the imposition of Excise Duty and penalty on the manufacturing of marble slabs. The Tribunal had upheld the demand for Excise Duty and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act for removing goods without payment of Duty. However, a significant development occurred when the Supreme Court, in a separate case, ruled that cutting marble blocks into slabs does not constitute manufacturing activity, rendering the levy of duty ultra vires. Subsequently, the petitioner surrendered their registration under the Excise Act and sought a refund for the duty already paid. The refusal of the refund application and the issuance of a notice for recovering the remaining penalty and interest prompted the filing of this writ petition.

The key legal precedent cited in this matter is a decision by the High Court in a related case, where it was held that there was no legal basis for levying and collecting tax on the activity of cutting marble blocks into slabs and tiles. The Court found that both parties were mistaken in considering this activity as manufacturing, leading to the imposition of Duty and penalty. Consequently, the Court in the present case relied on this previous judgment and quashed the orders adjudicating the demand for Excise Duty and penalty. It was further directed that any outstanding sums of Duty, interest, and Penalty cannot be recovered from the assessee based on the impugned levy orders and demand notices. However, any amount already recovered from the assessee would be subject to provisions under Section 11-B of the Act, allowing the assessee to seek recourse under Section 11-B if necessary. The respondents were restrained from making any further recovery, and no costs were awarded in this matter.