Jolly Televisions Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....on television sets exported out of india. the collector (appeals) in his impugned order has confirmed the demand, inter alia, on the ground that rule 13 of the central excise rules, 1944 does not permit export of the goods without payment of duty leviable under the finance act, 1985 in the absence of any specific notification exempting payment of additional excise duty on goods under export and further that the provisions of rule 13 are not applicable as far as the levy of additional excise duty under the finance act, 1985 is concerned.2. arguing on the stay applications, shri surinder kumar mallick, learned counsel, submitted that the said issue was pending before the government for consideration and ultimately the central board of excise and customs (cbec) has issued a circular no. 93/4/95-cx, dated 18th january, 1995 opining that "it is clear that this aed was in lieu of the licence fee which was collectable on domestic use of tv sets and not on tvs exported. in view of the above, it is clarified that demands of aed on tv sets when exported out of india are not sustainable and pending assessments may be finalised accordingly." shri s. sachdeva, learned sdr, submitted that.....

Judgment:

1. The issue involved in the present appeals is, as to whether the Additional Excise Duty can be levied and demanded on television sets exported out of India. The Collector (Appeals) in his impugned Order has confirmed the demand, inter alia, on the ground that Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 does not permit export of the goods without payment of duty leviable under the Finance Act, 1985 in the absence of any specific Notification exempting payment of Additional Excise Duty on goods under export and further that the provisions of Rule 13 are not applicable as far as the levy of Additional Excise Duty under the Finance Act, 1985 is concerned.

2. Arguing on the Stay Applications, Shri Surinder Kumar Mallick, learned counsel, submitted that the said issue was pending before the Government for consideration and ultimately the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) has issued a Circular No. 93/4/95-CX, dated 18th January, 1995 opining that "It is clear that this AED was in lieu of the licence fee which was collectable on domestic use of TV sets and not on TVs exported. In view of the above, it is clarified that demands of AED on TV sets when exported out of India are not sustainable and pending assessments may be finalised accordingly." Shri S. Sachdeva, learned SDR, submitted that in view of the said Circular he is not opposing the prayer for stay.

3. In view of the said Circular dated 18th January, 1995, we find a strong prima facie case for the purpose of the disposing of the present stay applications. What would be the effect of the Board's Circular on the issue involved in the present appeals, would be considered at the time of the hearing of the appeals on merits.

4. In the result, both the applications are allowed unconditionally and recovery proceedings, if started, shall also remain stayed.

5. Since the present case may not be the single case pending for the decision of the Tribunal, we give the liberty to the Department to move the application for early hearing and also for consolidation of other appeals which also involve the said issue.