9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of excise duty exemption notifications. 2. Validity of show cause notices for recovery of refunded excise duty. 3. Applicability of trade notices in excise duty matters. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of excise duty exemption notifications The petitioner, a joint stock company manufacturing speciality papers, was initially entitled to excise duty exemption under Notification No. 42/73. However, this exemption was replaced by Notification No. 129/77, which did not cover the manufacture of grease proof paper and glassine paper. Consequently, the company sought exemption under Notification No. 198/76 and No. 216/76 for excess clearances. The Assistant Collector granted the rebate and refund, allowing the company to pay excise duty at a concessional rate. The court held that the company was rightfully entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 216/76 once the conditions were met, and the refund claimed was valid for the period in question. Issue 2: Validity of show cause notices for recovery of refunded excise duty The Assistant Collector issued show cause notices to recover the refunded excise duty, alleging irregularity in the refund order. The notices were based on a trade notice suggesting that the company was not eligible for multiple exemptions simultaneously. However, the court found the trade notice to be non-binding and erroneous in this context. The court ruled that the company was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 216/76 after losing the benefit of previous notifications. The show cause notices demanding recovery of refunded duty were deemed faulty and without jurisdiction, leading to their quashing. Issue 3: Applicability of trade notices in excise duty matters The court emphasized that trade notices do not hold binding authority on quasi-judicial powers exercised by officials under the Act. Despite the Assistant Collector's reliance on a trade notice to issue show cause notices, the court held that the company's entitlement to excise duty exemptions was clear from the relevant notifications. The court concluded that the show cause notices were unjustified, as the company had followed the legal provisions in claiming the rebates and refunds. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the show cause notices demanding recovery of excise duty refunds. In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay upheld the petitioner's entitlement to excise duty exemptions under the applicable notifications and invalidated the show cause notices issued for the recovery of refunded excise duty, emphasizing the non-binding nature of trade notices in such matters.
|
