M/S. Godrej Consumer Products LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And 5 Ors.

Held

The Court held that in view of the consensus reached between the parties, the respondents are directed to refund the education cess and the higher education cess paid by the petitioner from April 2012 to August 2013. This decision is based on the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s SRD Nutrients Private Limited, which established that education cess and higher education cess are part of excise duty. The reasoning is that since the petitioner was entitled to exemption from excise duty under the NEIIPP, 2007, and the cesses are considered part of that duty, they are also eligible for refund. The operative direction is for the respondents (Commissioner of Central GST and Assistant Commissioner, GST) to make the necessary calculations and complete the refund process within five months from the receipt of a certified copy of the order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd., an industrial unit in Assam, sought a refund of education cess and higher education cess paid between April 2012 and August 2013. These cesses were levied under the Finance Act of 2004, in addition to excise duty. The petitioner had previously received refunds for excise duty paid, based on the North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy (NEIIPP), 2007. The core issue was whether these additional cesses were also eligible for refund under the same policy, as they were paid alongside the excise duty. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment in M/s SRD Nutrients Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati, which held that education cess and higher education cess partake of the character of excise duty itself.

Key Issues

1. Whether education cess and higher education cess paid by the petitioner are eligible for refund under the North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007, given that the Supreme Court in M/s SRD Nutrients Private Limited held these cesses to be part of excise duty. (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that following the Supreme Court's decision in M/s SRD Nutrients Private Limited, the education cess and higher education cess should be refunded as they are intrinsically linked to the excise duty, which was exempted under the NEIIPP, 2007. They also referred to a Meghalaya High Court order in a similar case where a refund was directed. Revenue's contention: The respondent authorities, upon instruction, submitted that they are bound to refund the education cess and higher education cess paid by the petitioner, in line with the Supreme Court's pronouncement in M/s SRD Nutrients Private Limited.