AMITAV K.GUPTA,J. - (1.) W.P. (T) No. 3575 of 2013 has been argued out by Sri Vaibhav Kumar and opposed by Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Ratnesh Kumar and Kaustav Panda. It has been submitted by the parties that similar matters have been decided by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(T) No. 3087 of 2013 and analogous matters vide judgment dated 27.11.2015.
(2.) This writ petition has been preferred challenging the action initiated by the respondents for recovery of excise duty upon coal. For the coal, excise duty is leviable from 1st March, 2011 on ad valorem basis. These petitioners were liable to make payment of excise duty on coal, but, at the relevant time, the amount of royalty paid by them was not included in the transaction value as defined under Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and, therefore, Union of India demanded differential excise duty from the respondents-Companies. The said amount has already been paid by the respondents-Companies to the Union of India and in terms of the contract between the petitioners and the respondents-Companies, they were liable to make payment of central excise duty. This differential excise duty has been demanded by the respondents from these petitioners and, therefore, these petitions have been preferred challenging the action of the respondents-Companies mainly on the ground that royalty is covered by the words "other taxes" as used in Section 4(3)(d) of the Act of 1944 and, therefore, royalty is not a part and parcel of "transaction value" and, therefore, no excise duty is leviable upon the royalty paid by these petitioners.
(3.) Counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued out the case at length and has relied upon several decisions which are as under: (1990) 1 SCC 12 India Cement Limited & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and others (2004) 10 SCC 201 State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Limited (2011) 4 SCC 450 Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India Limited (1996) 5 SCC 373 I. D.L. Chemicals Limited v. Union of India & ors;