M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA
Private Limited v. Union of India, 1986 SCC Supp. 557, has followed the decision of Modi Rubber Limited (supra). The decision in Modi Rubber Limited (supra) squarely covers the issue and is rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench. 39. Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, authorises the Central Government to grant an exemption to any excisable goods from the whole or any part of duty leviable on such goods. Rule 8 is extracted hereunder: 8. Power to authorise an exemption from duty in special cases.—(1) The Central Government may from time to time, by notification in the official Gazette, exempt (subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification) any excisable goods from the whole or any part of duty leviable on such goods. (2) The Central Board of Excise and Customs may by special order in each case exempt from the payment of duty, under circumstances of an exceptional nature, any excisable goods. The word duty is defined under Rule 2(v) to mean the duty as levied under the Act. 40. Notification dated 9.9.2003 issued in the present case makes it clear that exemption was granted under Section 5A of the Act of 1944, concerning additional duties under the Act of 1957 and additional duties of excise under the Act of 1978. It was questioned on the ground that it provided for limited exemption only under the Acts referred to therein. There is no reference to the Finance Act, 2001 by which NCCD was imposed, and the Finance Acts of 2004 and 2007 were not in vogue. The notification was questioned on the ground that it should have included other duties also. The notification could not have contemplated the inclusion of education cess and secondary and higher education cess imposed by the Finance Acts of 2004 and 2007 in the nature of the duty of excise. The duty on NCCD, education cess and secondary and higher education cess are in the nature of additional excise duty and it would not mean that exemption notification dated 9.9.2003 covers them particularly when there is no reference to the notification issued under the Finance Act, 2001. There was no question of granting exemption related to cess was not in vogue at the relevant time imposed later on vide Section 91 of the Act of 2004 and Section 126 of the Act of 2007. The provisions of Act of 1944 and the Rules made thereunder shall be applicable to refund, and the exemption is only a reference to the source of power to exempt the NCCD, education cess, secondary and higher education cess. A notification has to be issued for providing exemption under the said source of power. In the absence of a notification containing an exemption to such additional duties in the nature of education cess and secondary and higher education cess, they cannot be said to have been exempted. The High Court was right in relying upon the decision of three-Judge Bench of this Court in Modi Rubber Limited (supra), which has been followed by another three-Judge Bench of this Court in Rita Textiles Private Limited (supra). 41. The Circular of 2004 issued based on the interpretation of the provisions made by one of the Customs Officers, is of no avail as such Circular has no force of law and cannot be said to be binding on the Court. Similarly, the Circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs in 2011, is of no avail as it relates to service tax and has no force of law and cannot be said to be binding concerning the interpretation of the provisions by the courts. The reason employed in SRD Nutrients Private Limited (supra) that there was nil excise duty, as such, additional duty cannot be charged, is also equally unacceptable as additional duty can always be determined and merely exemption granted in respect of a particular excise duty, cannot come in the way of determination of yet another duty based thereupon. The proposition urged that simply because one kind of duty is exempted, other kinds of duties automatically fall, cannot be accepted as there is no difficulty in making the computation of additional duties, which are payable under NCCD, education cess, secondary and higher education cess. Moreover, statutory notification must cover specifically the duty exempted. When a particular kind of duty is exempted, other types of duty or cess imposed by different legislation for a different purpose cannot be said to have been exempted. 42. The decision of larger bench is binding on the smaller bench has been held by this Court in several decisions such as Mahanagar Railway Vendors Union v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) Suppl. 1 SCC 609, State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, AIR 2006 SC 3446 and State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Sharma & Ors. (2016) 15 SCC 289 . The decision rendered in ignorance of a binding precedent and/or ignorance of a provision has been held to be per incuriam in Subhash Chandra & Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. (2009) 15 SCC 458 , Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129 , and Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 673 . It was held that a smaller bench could not disagree with the view taken by a larger bench. 43. Thus, it is clear that before the Division Bench deciding SRD Nutrients Private Limited and Bajaj Auto Limited (supra), the previous binding decisions of three-Judge Bench in Modi Rubber (supra) and Rita Textiles Private Limited (supra) were not placed for consideration. Thus, the decisions in SRD Nutrients Private Limited and Bajaj Auto Limited (supra) are clearly per incuriam. The decisions in Modi Rubber (supra) and Rita Textiles Private Limited (supra) are binding on us being of Co- ordinate Bench, and we respectfully follow them. We did not find any ground to take a different view.
0[ds]15. It is not disputed that the Government of India took a policy decision, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion vide Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1997, concerning new industrial policy and concessions in the North-Eastern region. The decision was taken for converting the Growth Centres and IIDCs into total tax-free zones for the next ten years. All industrial activities in these zones would be free from income tax and excise duty for ten years from the commencement of production24. It is not in dispute that when initial exemption notification was issued in 1997 for the North-Eastern States, which was later on applied to the State of Sikkim on 9.9.2003. The benefits from payment of excise duty and additional excise duty were confined to the basic excise duty payable under the Acts of 1944, 1957 and 1978. There was no reference made to NCCD imposed under the Finance Act, 2001. Apart from that, when the notification came to be issued, the education cess and secondary and higher education cess, which came to be imposed by Finance Acts of 2004 and 2007, were not in vogue40. Notification dated 9.9.2003 issued in the present case makes it clear that exemption was granted under Section 5A of the Act of 1944, concerning additional duties under the Act of 1957 and additional duties of excise under the Act of 1978. It was questioned on the ground that it provided for limited exemption only under the Acts referred to therein. There is no reference to the Finance Act, 2001 by which NCCD was imposed, and the Finance Acts of 2004 and 2007 were not in vogue. The notification was questioned on the ground that it should have included other duties also. The notification could not have contemplated the inclusion of education cess and secondary and higher education cess imposed by the Finance Acts of 2004 and 2007 in the nature of the duty of excise. The duty on NCCD, education cess and secondary and higher education cess are in the nature of additional excise duty and it would not mean that exemption notification dated 9.9.2003 covers them particularly when there is no reference to the notification issued under the Finance Act, 2001. There was no question of granting exemption related to cess was not in vogue at the relevant time imposed later on vide Section 91 of the Act of 2004 and Section 126 of the Act of 2007. The provisions of Act of 1944 and the Rules made thereunder shall be applicable to refund, and the exemption is only a reference to the source of power to exempt the NCCD, education cess, secondary and higher education cess. A notification has to be issued for providing exemption under the said source of power. In the absence of a notification containing an exemption to such additional duties in the nature of education cess and secondary and higher education cess, they cannot be said to have been exempted. The High Court was right in relying upon the decision of three-Judge Bench of this Court in Modi Rubber Limited (supra), which has been followed by another three-Judge Bench of this Court in Rita Textiles Private Limited (supra)41. The Circular of 2004 issued based on the interpretation of the provisions made by one of the Customs Officers, is of no avail as such Circular has no force of law and cannot be said to be binding on the Court. Similarly, the Circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs in 2011, is of no avail as it relates to service tax and has no force of law and cannot be said to be binding concerning the interpretation of the provisions by the courts. The reason employed in SRD Nutrients Private Limited (supra) that there was nil excise duty, as such, additional duty cannot be charged, is also equally unacceptable as additional duty can always be determined and merely exemption granted in respect of a particular excise duty, cannot come in the way of determination of yet another duty based thereupon. The proposition urged that simply because one kind of duty is exempted, other kinds of duties automatically fall, cannot be accepted as there is no difficulty in making the computation of additional duties, which are payable under NCCD, education cess, secondary and higher education cess. Moreover, statutory notification must cover specifically the duty exempted. When a particular kind of duty is exempted, other types of duty or cess imposed by different legislation for a different purpose cannot be said to have been exempted42. The decision of larger bench is binding on the smaller bench has been held by this Court in several decisions such as Mahanagar Railway Vendors Union v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) Suppl. 1 SCC 609,    State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, AIR 2006 SC 3446    and State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Sharma & Ors. (2016) 15 SCC 289 .   The decision rendered in ignorance of a binding precedent and/or ignorance of a provision has been held to be per incuriam in Subhash Chandra & Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. (2009) 15 SCC 458   , Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129   , and Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 673 .   It was held that a smaller bench could not disagree with the view taken by a larger bench43. Thus, it is clear that before the Division Bench deciding SRD Nutrients Private Limited and Bajaj Auto Limited (supra), the previous binding decisions of three-Judge Bench in Modi Rubber (supra) and Rita Textiles Private Limited (supra) were not placed for consideration. Thus, the decisions in SRD Nutrients Private Limited and Bajaj Auto Limited (supra) are clearly per incuriam. The decisions in Modi Rubber (supra) and Rita Textiles Private Limited (supra) are binding on us being of Co- ordinate Bench, and we respectfully follow them. We did not find any ground to take a different view32. The provisions of Section 32 are pari materia to the abovementioned provisions of the Finance Act(s) in question. The special duty under Section 32 of Finance Act, 1979 imposed was in addition to any duties of excise chargeable on such goods under the provisions of the Central Excises Act and the Rules made thereunder, with respect to refunds and exemptions from duties, shall, as far as may be, apply to the levy and collection of special duties of excise leviable under the provisions of Section 32 of the Finance Act, 1979.
### Instruction:
Conjecture the end result of the case (acceptance (1) or non-acceptance (0) of the appeal), followed by a detailed explanation using crucial sentences from the case proceeding.

### Input:
Private Limited v. Union of India, 1986 SCC Supp. 557, has followed the decision of Modi Rubber Limited (supra). The decision in Modi Rubber Limited (supra) squarely covers the issue and is rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench. 39. Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, authorises the Central Government to grant an exemption to any excisable goods from the whole or any part of duty leviable on such goods. Rule 8 is extracted hereunder: 8. Power to authorise an exemption from duty in special cases.—(1) The Central Government may from time to time, by notification in the official Gazette, exempt (subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification) any excisable goods from the whole or any part of duty leviable on such goods. (2) The Central Board of Excise and Customs may by special order in each case exempt from the payment of duty, under circumstances of an exceptional nature, any excisable goods. The word duty is defined under Rule 2(v) to mean the duty as levied under the Act. 40. Notification dated 9.9.2003 issued in the present case makes it clear that exemption was granted under Section 5A of the Act of 1944, concerning additional duties under the Act of 1957 and additional duties of excise under the Act of 1978. It was questioned on the ground that it provided for limited exemption only under the Acts referred to therein. There is no reference to the Finance Act, 2001 by which NCCD was imposed, and the Finance Acts of 2004 and 2007 were not in vogue. The notification was questioned on the ground that it should have included other duties also. The notification could not have contemplated the inclusion of education cess and secondary and higher education cess imposed by the Finance Acts of 2004 and 2007 in the nature of the duty of excise. The duty on NCCD, education cess and secondary and higher education cess are in the nature of additional excise duty and it would not mean that exemption notification dated 9.9.2003 covers them particularly when there is no reference to the notification issued under the Finance Act, 2001. There was no question of granting exemption related to cess was not in vogue at the relevant time imposed later on vide Section 91 of the Act of 2004 and Section 126 of the Act of 2007. The provisions of Act of 1944 and the Rules made thereunder shall be applicable to refund, and the exemption is only a reference to the source of power to exempt the NCCD, education cess, secondary and higher education cess. A notification has to be issued for providing exemption under the said source of power. In the absence of a notification containing an exemption to such additional duties in the nature of education cess and secondary and higher education cess, they cannot be said to have been exempted. The High Court was right in relying upon the decision of three-Judge Bench of this Court in Modi Rubber Limited (supra), which has been followed by another three-Judge Bench of this Court in Rita Textiles Private Limited (supra). 41. The Circular of 2004 issued based on the interpretation of the provisions made by one of the Customs Officers, is of no avail as such Circular has no force of law and cannot be said to be binding on the Court. Similarly, the Circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs in 2011, is of no avail as it relates to service tax and has no force of law and cannot be said to be binding concerning the interpretation of the provisions by the courts. The reason employed in SRD Nutrients Private Limited (supra) that there was nil excise duty, as such, additional duty cannot be charged, is also equally unacceptable as additional duty can always be determined and merely exemption granted in respect of a particular excise duty, cannot come in the way of determination of yet another duty based thereupon. The proposition urged that simply because one kind of duty is exempted, other kinds of duties automatically fall, cannot be accepted as there is no difficulty in making the computation of additional duties, which are payable under NCCD, education cess, secondary and higher education cess. Moreover, statutory notification must cover specifically the duty exempted. When a particular kind of duty is exempted, other types of duty or cess imposed by different legislation for a different purpose cannot be said to have been exempted. 42. The decision of larger bench is binding on the smaller bench has been held by this Court in several decisions such as Mahanagar Railway Vendors Union v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) Suppl. 1 SCC 609, State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, AIR 2006 SC 3446 and State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Sharma & Ors. (2016) 15 SCC 289 . The decision rendered in ignorance of a binding precedent and/or ignorance of a provision has been held to be per incuriam in Subhash Chandra & Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. (2009) 15 SCC 458 , Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129 , and Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 673 . It was held that a smaller bench could not disagree with the view taken by a larger bench. 43. Thus, it is clear that before the Division Bench deciding SRD Nutrients Private Limited and Bajaj Auto Limited (supra), the previous binding decisions of three-Judge Bench in Modi Rubber (supra) and Rita Textiles Private Limited (supra) were not placed for consideration. Thus, the decisions in SRD Nutrients Private Limited and Bajaj Auto Limited (supra) are clearly per incuriam. The decisions in Modi Rubber (supra) and Rita Textiles Private Limited (supra) are binding on us being of Co- ordinate Bench, and we respectfully follow them. We did not find any ground to take a different view.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
payment of excise duty and additional excise duty were confined to the basic excise duty payable under the Acts of 1944, 1957 and 1978. There was no reference made to NCCD imposed under the Finance Act, 2001. Apart from that, when the notification came to be issued, the education cess and secondary and higher education cess, which came to be imposed by Finance Acts of 2004 and 2007, were not in vogue40. Notification dated 9.9.2003 issued in the present case makes it clear that exemption was granted under Section 5A of the Act of 1944, concerning additional duties under the Act of 1957 and additional duties of excise under the Act of 1978. It was questioned on the ground that it provided for limited exemption only under the Acts referred to therein. There is no reference to the Finance Act, 2001 by which NCCD was imposed, and the Finance Acts of 2004 and 2007 were not in vogue. The notification was questioned on the ground that it should have included other duties also. The notification could not have contemplated the inclusion of education cess and secondary and higher education cess imposed by the Finance Acts of 2004 and 2007 in the nature of the duty of excise. The duty on NCCD, education cess and secondary and higher education cess are in the nature of additional excise duty and it would not mean that exemption notification dated 9.9.2003 covers them particularly when there is no reference to the notification issued under the Finance Act, 2001. There was no question of granting exemption related to cess was not in vogue at the relevant time imposed later on vide Section 91 of the Act of 2004 and Section 126 of the Act of 2007. The provisions of Act of 1944 and the Rules made thereunder shall be applicable to refund, and the exemption is only a reference to the source of power to exempt the NCCD, education cess, secondary and higher education cess. A notification has to be issued for providing exemption under the said source of power. In the absence of a notification containing an exemption to such additional duties in the nature of education cess and secondary and higher education cess, they cannot be said to have been exempted. The High Court was right in relying upon the decision of three-Judge Bench of this Court in Modi Rubber Limited (supra), which has been followed by another three-Judge Bench of this Court in Rita Textiles Private Limited (supra)41. The Circular of 2004 issued based on the interpretation of the provisions made by one of the Customs Officers, is of no avail as such Circular has no force of law and cannot be said to be binding on the Court. Similarly, the Circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs in 2011, is of no avail as it relates to service tax and has no force of law and cannot be said to be binding concerning the interpretation of the provisions by the courts. The reason employed in SRD Nutrients Private Limited (supra) that there was nil excise duty, as such, additional duty cannot be charged, is also equally unacceptable as additional duty can always be determined and merely exemption granted in respect of a particular excise duty, cannot come in the way of determination of yet another duty based thereupon. The proposition urged that simply because one kind of duty is exempted, other kinds of duties automatically fall, cannot be accepted as there is no difficulty in making the computation of additional duties, which are payable under NCCD, education cess, secondary and higher education cess. Moreover, statutory notification must cover specifically the duty exempted. When a particular kind of duty is exempted, other types of duty or cess imposed by different legislation for a different purpose cannot be said to have been exempted42. The decision of larger bench is binding on the smaller bench has been held by this Court in several decisions such as Mahanagar Railway Vendors Union v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) Suppl. 1 SCC 609,    State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, AIR 2006 SC 3446    and State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Sharma & Ors. (2016) 15 SCC 289 .   The decision rendered in ignorance of a binding precedent and/or ignorance of a provision has been held to be per incuriam in Subhash Chandra & Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. (2009) 15 SCC 458   , Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129   , and Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 673 .   It was held that a smaller bench could not disagree with the view taken by a larger bench43. Thus, it is clear that before the Division Bench deciding SRD Nutrients Private Limited and Bajaj Auto Limited (supra), the previous binding decisions of three-Judge Bench in Modi Rubber (supra) and Rita Textiles Private Limited (supra) were not placed for consideration. Thus, the decisions in SRD Nutrients Private Limited and Bajaj Auto Limited (supra) are clearly per incuriam. The decisions in Modi Rubber (supra) and Rita Textiles Private Limited (supra) are binding on us being of Co- ordinate Bench, and we respectfully follow them. We did not find any ground to take a different view32. The provisions of Section 32 are pari materia to the abovementioned provisions of the Finance Act(s) in question. The special duty under Section 32 of Finance Act, 1979 imposed was in addition to any duties of excise chargeable on such goods under the provisions of the Central Excises Act and the Rules made thereunder, with respect to refunds and exemptions from duties, shall, as far as may be, apply to the levy and collection of special duties of excise leviable under the provisions of Section 32 of the Finance Act, 1979.
