Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court Ban Junk Food Within 50 Metres Of Schools: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance To Enforce FSSAI Norms, Protect Children From Obesity

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