9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 485 - AT - Central ExciseLiability of National Calamity Contingency Duty (NCCD) - contention of the Appellant is that National Calamity Contingency is in the nature of a duty and, therefore, entitled for the benefit of the Exemption Notification - HELD THAT - The Supreme Court in the case of M/S HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE 2019 (6) TMI 762 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that the NCCD is in the nature of excise duty and is, thus, entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. The imposition of duty on National Calamity Contingent, therefore needs to be set aside - the payment for EC and SHEC, in such circumstances, will also have to be set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against order confirming payment of NCCD, EC, and SHEC, along with interest and penalty. Analysis: The appeal was filed challenging the order passed by the Commissioner confirming the demand for National Calamity Contingent duty (NCCD), Education Cess (EC), and Secondary and Higher Education Cess (SHEC), directing the appellant to pay interest and penalty. The appellant contended that NCCD is in the nature of a duty and should be exempted. It was acknowledged that a similar issue was raised by the appellant in earlier periods before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a related case, clarified that NCCD is akin to excise duty and is entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. The court emphasized that the appellant had paid certain amounts towards NCCD, EC, and SHEC during the appeal but had not deposited the penalty amount. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the duty on NCCD was set aside, leading to the setting aside of payment for EC and SHEC as well. The judgment referred to a specific case, where it was established that NCCD is considered excise duty and is eligible for exemption. The court highlighted that the appellant had made payments for NCCD, EC, and SHEC during the pendency of the appeal, except for the penalty amount. Following the precedent set in the mentioned case, the court allowed the appeals and ordered the refund of the amount paid by the appellant to the department within two months. The court emphasized that the duty on NCCD should be annulled, leading to the reversal of payments for EC and SHEC as well. Consequently, the order passed by the Commissioner was set aside, and the appellant was entitled to a refund within a specified timeframe upon submission of the order copy to the relevant authority. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the appellant's argument regarding the nature of NCCD as a duty and the subsequent exemption claim. By referencing a relevant Supreme Court decision, the court established that NCCD is akin to excise duty and should be exempted. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the duty on NCCD and the payments for EC and SHEC. The appellant was directed to receive a refund of the amount paid to the department within a specified period upon submission of the order copy to the relevant authority.
|
