9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 435 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of AED (T&TA) in addition of Compounded levy of duty on fabrics - Majority order - Rule 15 of the Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001 - Amount of duty fixed under Compounded Levy Scheme Notification No.33/01-CE, dt.28.6.01 is total amount of duty payable and therefore it includes all types of Excise duties - Liablity to pay AED (T&TA) in addition to Excise duty Held that - It is undisputed that AED (T&TA) is levied under the special provisions of the Act and these are to be recovered as duty of excise under the provisions of Central Excise Act, is also mandated in the very same Act - Clause 3 of notification No.33/2001-CE specifically reads that such payment shall be in full discharge of his liability or the duty leviable on his production of the embroidery during the said shift. This clause needs to read with the words used in the preamble to the notification, and holistic reading will indicate that an assessee need not discharge any further duty under AED (T&TA) - Decision of the Tribunal in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd.- 2007 (5) TMI 464 - CESTAT, BANGALORE will be applicable Appeal allowed Decided in favor of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellants are required to pay 15% of Excise Duty payable towards Additional Excise Duty (Textile and Textile Articles) [AED (T&TA)]. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Liability to Pay AED (T&TA): The primary issue revolves around whether the appellants, who are operating under the Compounded Levy Scheme as per Notification No. 33/2001, are liable to pay AED (T&TA) in addition to the fixed duty of Rs. 45 per meter length of the machine per shift. The appellants argued that the fixed duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme should cover all types of excise duties, including AED (T&TA). The lower authority, however, held that AED (T&TA) is payable in addition to the fixed duty. 2. Interpretation of Notification No. 33/2001: The notification provides an option to pay duty based on the meter length of the machine per shift. The term "duty" as used in the notification is crucial. The Commissioner interpreted "duty" to mean only the duties specified in the 1st and 2nd Schedule of CETA, 1985, as defined under Rule 2(e) of the Central Excise Rules (CER). This interpretation led to the conclusion that AED (T&TA), not being part of these schedules, is payable separately. 3. Tribunal's Precedents and Applicability: The appellants cited several Tribunal decisions, including those related to Notification No. 214/86 and the Cenvat Credit Rules, arguing that the duty liability shifts to the principal manufacturer, thus exempting the job worker from paying AED (T&TA). However, these precedents were found not comparable on facts and not applicable to the present case. 4. Majority Decision: The majority opinion, including the detailed analysis by the third member, concluded that the discharge of duty under Notification No. 33/2001-CE should include all duties, including AED (T&TA). The Tribunal's decision in Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. was cited, which held that all duties of excise, including additional duties, are covered under similar notifications. The CBEC Circular No. 60/1/2006-CX dated 13.01.06 was also referenced, clarifying that duties chargeable under any Act of Parliament, including AED (T&TA), are covered under the provisions of the Central Excise Act. 5. Conclusion: The majority concluded that the fixed duty of Rs. 45 per meter length of the machine per shift under Notification No. 33/2001-CE covers all types of excise duties, including AED (T&TA). Therefore, the appellants are not required to pay AED (T&TA) separately. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Final Order: In view of the majority opinion, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeals are allowed.
|
