2024 (1) TMI 178 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund of education cess and secondary and higher education cess which was paid along with excise duty in terms of Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 as amended - HELD THAT - This issue has been considered by this Tribunal in bunch of appeals and this Tribunal in the case of M/S IND SWIFT LABS LTD, SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH-II AND HOWCO PETROFER LIP, J K PIGMENTS LTD, PBI METALS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS CCE ST- JAMMU KASHMIR 2023 (9) TMI 962 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH has rejected the appeal of the appellant by relying upon the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/S. UNICORN INDUSTRIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS 2019 (12) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that a notification has to be issued for providing exemption under the said source of power and that in the absence of notification containing an exemption to such additional duties in the nature of education cess and secondary and higher education cess, they cannot be said to have been exempted. Thus, refund rightly rejected - there are no infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld by dismissing the appeal of the appellant - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the refund of education cess and secondary and higher education cess paid along with excise duty in terms of Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 as amended is admissible or not.

Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chandigarh considered the appeal against the rejection of the refund claim of the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals). The key issue revolved around the admissibility of refund for education cess and secondary and higher education cess paid along with excise duty. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving M/s Ind Swift Labs Ltd. and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Unicorn Industries vs. Union of India. The Tribunal highlighted that the exemption notification did not cover education cess and higher secondary education cess, leading to the denial of refund. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a specific notification for exemption under the relevant source of power. Citing legal provisions and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of refund was justified based on the existing legal framework. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order denying the refund, in line with the previous decisions and legal principles.

Separate Judgement:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.