Multiple NDPS Cases Without Conviction Cannot Justify Indefinite Pre-Trial Custody: Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail in Heroin Case Departmental Findings Based On Witnesses Discredited By Criminal Court Constitute 'No Evidence': Orissa High Court Upheld Constable's Reinstatement When Pension Rules Are Capable of More Than One Interpretation, Courts Must Lean in Favour of the Employee: MP High Court Wife Left Voluntarily — But Minor Children Cannot Be Taken Away: Madras High Court Intervenes in Habeas Corpus for Two Toddlers Where Consideration Does Not Pass in Terms of the Sale Deed, the Sale Deed Is Null and Void, a Nullity and Dead Letter in the Eyes of Law: Jharkhand High Court National Award-Winning Director's Script Was Registered Two Years Before Complainant Even Wrote His — Supreme Court Quashes Copyright Infringement Case Against 'Kahaani-2' Director IBC Clean Slate Does Not Wipe Out Right of Set-Off as Defence: Supreme Court Draws Critical Distinction Between Counterclaim and Defensive Plea GST Assessment Challenged on Natural Justice Grounds Tagged to Criminal Writ in Supreme Court Railway Cannot Escape Compensation by Crying 'Trespass' Without Eyewitness: Bombay High Court Reverses Tribunal, Awards Rs. 4 Lakh to Widow of Rolex Employee Master Plan Cannot Be Held Hostage to Subsequent Vegetation Growth — Supreme Court Settles Deemed Forest vs. Statutory Planning Conflict Contempt | Sold Property Despite Court's Restraint Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sentences One Month's Imprisonment Tractor-Run-Over Death Was An Accident, Not Murder: Allahabad High Court Acquits Three Accused Fast-Tracking Cannot Bury Justice: Supreme Court Sets Aside 21-Year-Delayed Appeal Decided Without Informing Convict Panchayat Act's Demolition Powers Cease Once Plot Falls Under Development Authority's Planning Area: Calcutta High Court Actual Date Of Woman Director's Appointment A Triable Issue; Prosecution Can't Be Quashed Merely On Claims Of Compliance: Calcutta High Court A Website Cannot Whisper and Then Punish: Delhi High Court Reins in DSSSB Over E-Dossier Rejections Mutual Consent Alone Ends the Marriage: Gujarat High Court Affirms Mubarat Divorce Without Formalities State Cannot Hide Behind "Oral Consent" or Delay When It Builds Roads Through Citizens' Land Without Due Process: Himachal Pradesh HC Show Cause Notice Alone Cannot Cut a Retired Engineer's Pension: Jharkhand High Court Bovine Smuggling Is a Law and Order Problem, Not a Public Order Threat: J&K High Court Quashes PSA Detention Article 22(2) Constitution | Production Beyond 24 Hours Not Fatal If Delay Explained And Travel Time Excluded: Karnataka High Court Article 227 Is Not an Appellate Power: High Court Refuses to Reassess Tribunal Findings on Pension Claim: Kerala High Court High Court Cannot Call A Complaint "False And Malicious" Without First Finding It Discloses No Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court When Jurisdiction Fails, Remand Cannot Cure It: Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Sending MSME Award Dispute Back to Functus Officio Facilitation Council Selling Inferior Pipes as 'Jain' or 'Jindal Gold' Brand Is Not Just a Civil Wrong — It's Cheating: MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Went to Collect Chit Fund Money, Got Arrested in Prostitution Raid: Telangana High Court Grants Bail to Woman Accused of Being Sub-Organiser Axe Blow During Sudden Quarrel Falls Under Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC, Not Murder: Orissa High Court Modifies Conviction To Culpable Homicide

Excise Duty | Goods Exported Without Retail Sale Price in Rupees Are Not Eligible for Exemption Under Notification No. 3/2006: Bombay High Court

24 October 2024 7:21 PM

By: sayum


Bombay High Court held that exported goods without retail price not eligible for exemption; rebate on duty paid can be claimed. On October 21, 2024, the Bombay High Court delivered a significant ruling in the case of M/s. Parle Products Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. The Court quashed the revisional authority’s order that had reversed the petitioner’s rebate claim on excise duty paid for exported goods. The judgment clarifies that goods exported without a retail sale price in rupees are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 3/2006, and therefore, the petitioner was justified in paying duty and claiming a rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

M/s. Parle Products Ltd., a biscuit manufacturer, paid excise duty on biscuits exported out of India and sought a rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The petitioner argued that since the exported goods did not bear a retail sale price in rupees, they were not covered by the exemption notification (No. 3/2006-CE). The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise initially denied the rebate claim, contending that the biscuits were exempt from duty under the notification, which applied to goods with a retail sale price below Rs. 100 per kg.

The petitioner’s appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) was successful, but the revenue challenged the appellate order in a revision application under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revisional Authority reversed the appellate decision, stating that the petitioner was not required to pay duty on the exempted goods and therefore could not claim a rebate.

The primary legal issue in the case was whether goods exported without a retail sale price in rupees fell within the scope of Notification No. 3/2006, which grants excise duty exemption for biscuits with a retail price not exceeding Rs. 100 per kg. The petitioner contended that the exemption was inapplicable to exported goods, as the requirement of a retail price in rupees did not apply to such goods under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, and related rules.

Another key issue was whether the revenue’s retention of duty paid by the petitioner, even if the goods were exempt, violated Article 265 of the Constitution, which prohibits the collection of taxes without the authority of law.

The Court observed that the exemption under Notification No. 3/2006 applied only to biscuits sold in packaged form with a retail sale price in rupees not exceeding Rs. 100 per kg. Since the exported biscuits did not bear a retail sale price in rupees, they were not eligible for the exemption.

"There is no dispute that the biscuits exported by the Petitioner did not have the retail sale price in rupees embossed on the package... Therefore, the goods under consideration exported out of India would not fall within the description mentioned in the exemption notification." [Para 13]

The Court further rejected the revenue’s argument that since the petitioner was exempt from paying duty, they were not entitled to claim a rebate. The Court emphasized that retaining the duty paid without legal authority would violate Article 265 of the Constitution:

"Assuming, the contention of revenue that the goods exported are exempted under notification No.03/2006 is accepted... retention would be contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution of India which provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law." [Para 15]

The Court also noted that the revenue had previously accepted similar rebate claims from the petitioner on identical facts, both at the appellate level and before the Tribunal. The Court found that the revenue could not now take a contrary position:

"We fail to understand how, today, the revenue, after accepting the orders of the appellate authorities in the Petitioner’s own case, can contend the contrary. Therefore, the Petitioner’s rebate claim must be allowed even on this count." [Para 18]

The Court quashed the revisional authority’s order and directed the revenue to grant the petitioner’s rebate claims. It held that the goods exported did not meet the criteria for exemption under Notification No. 3/2006 and that the petitioner was justified in paying excise duty based on the transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The Bombay High Court allowed M/s. Parle Products Ltd.’s claim for a rebate of excise duty paid on exported biscuits, reiterating that goods without a retail sale price in rupees do not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 3/2006. The judgment sets a precedent affirming the right of exporters to claim a rebate even if the goods were incorrectly classified as exempt by the revenue, thereby ensuring that duties paid without legal obligation cannot be unjustly retained.

Date of Decision: October 21, 2024

M/s. Parle Products Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Latest Legal News