1995 (12) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether the respondent is eligible for proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for additional excise duty paid under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978.

Analysis:
The appeals filed by the Department questioned the eligibility of the respondent to claim proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for additional excise duty paid under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978. The Department argued that additional excise duty should not be considered as excise duty under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. They relied on a Supreme Court case to support their position. On the other hand, the respondent contended that they were already paying duty on the goods and if the additional duty is not considered excise duty, it would result in double taxation. The respondent referred to various court decisions supporting their stance that additional duty is indeed excise duty. The Tribunal noted that the goods in question were eligible for proforma credit for the additional excise duty paid by the respondent. They emphasized that accepting the Department's interpretation would lead to double taxation, which is not permissible unless explicitly provided for. Citing decisions from the Delhi High Court and the Gujarat High Court, the Tribunal concluded that the additional duty under the Act is akin to excise duty and is an integral part of the duty of excise. Therefore, they upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the respondent is entitled to claim proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the additional excise duty paid under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978. They based their decision on the principle that double taxation is not permissible unless specifically provided for and relied on previous court rulings establishing the nature of the additional duty as excise duty. The appeal filed by the Department was dismissed, affirming the legality of the impugned order.