Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (11) TMI 434

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntentions are left open - matter remanded back – Decided in favour of Petitioner. - Writ Petition No. 2495 of 2011(Excise) - - - Dated:- 31-1-2013 - H.N. Nagamohan Das, J. Shri Lakshmikumaran, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri N.R. Bhaskar, Sr. CGSC, for the Respondent. ORDER In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 7-7-2010 Annexure W passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India. 2. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. Petitioner is engaged in manufacture of automobile goods. The petitioner manufactured the automobile goods in their factory premises at Mysore and the same was cleared to their place of business .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ended by section 3 of the Finance Act, 2004 (13 of 2004); e. special excise duty collected under a Finance Act; f. additional duty of excise as levied under section 91 read with section 93 of the Finance Act, 2003 (32 of 2003); g. Education Cess on excisable goods as levied under section 91 read with section 93 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 (23 of 2004); h. The additional duty of excise leviable under clause 85 of the Finance Bill, 2005, the clause which has, by virtue of the declaration made in the said Finance Bill under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 (16 of 1931), the force of law; i. Secondary and Higher Education Cess on excisable goods leviable under clause (126) read with clause ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Therefore the impugned order at Annexure W is in accordance with law. It is further contended that the object of levying duty is entirely different from the object of levying the cess. Allowing refund of duty and levying cess are to achieve the same object. Therefore the impugned order do not call for interference. Accordingly he supports the impugned order. 7. Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the entire writ papers. 8. A combined reading of the notification under the Central Excise Rules and Automobile Duty Rules specifies that the manner of levying, collecting and refund as applicable to the duty are applicable to the Automobile Excise Cess. This aspect of the matter is not considered in the impugned order. 9. In ident .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates