1990 (3) TMI 175 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to the impugned Order related to three Orders passed by the Collector (Appeals).
- Contention regarding the legality of the proposed recovery of cess.
- Applicability of Cess based on the functions of the National Oil Seeds and Vegetable Oil Development Board.
- Levying of Cess before the constitution of the Board.
- Compliance with Form-A requirements under the Vegetable Oil Cess Rules.

Analysis:
The case involved appeals against Orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) concerning the recovery of cess on oil manufactured from Soyabean Oil Seeds. The appellants contested the legality of the proposed recovery, arguing that the Cess was unauthorized and beyond jurisdiction. The key issue raised was the applicability of the Cess based on the services to be rendered by the National Oil Seeds and Vegetable Oil Development Board. The appellants contended that Cess could only be levied once the Board started functioning, which had not occurred by the specified date. They further argued that since the Board was constituted after a certain date, no Cess should have been imposed before its establishment.

The Tribunal analyzed the legal framework under the Vegetable Oil Cess Act, 1983, which mandated the levy and collection of Cess on vegetable oils for industry development. The Central Government had specified the date of enforcement and the rate of Cess through official notifications. The Tribunal held that the Cess became applicable from the specified date, regardless of the Board's constitution. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that the obligation to pay Cess arises immediately upon the taxable event, irrespective of administrative appointments. The delay in appointing officials does not absolve the liability to pay Cess for the relevant period.

Regarding the contention on Form-A requirements under the Vegetable Oil Cess Rules, the Tribunal clarified that the rules mandated the submission of returns by mill operators, including information on oil production. Even if the prescribed form did not explicitly cover all production methods, the liability for Cess remained if oil was manufactured from oil seeds. Therefore, the absence of specific form columns did not exempt the appellants from Cess liability. The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals, upholding the Collector's Orders on the Cess recovery.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision reaffirmed the legal obligation to pay Cess as per the statutory provisions, independent of the Board's operational status. The judgment underscored the immediate accrual of Cess liability upon the taxable event, emphasizing compliance with legal requirements for Cess payment, irrespective of administrative formalities.