1983 (7) TMI 326 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 146/74-C.E. regarding rebate on excess production.
2. Transfer of Revision Application to the Tribunal under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Delay in appearance due to car breakdown leading to dismissal of the Appeal.
4. Continuation of the Appeal post-amalgamation of the appellant with another company as per High Court orders.
5. Consistency in decisions regarding rebate on excess production based on previous judgments.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this judgment revolves around the interpretation of Notification No. 146/74-C.E. issued by the Central Government under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The question at hand is whether the appellant was entitled to rebate on excess production as claimed or if the Revenue's stance that rebate was only permissible on percentages of average production is correct.

2. The Revision Application was initially filed under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 before the Government of India. The application was transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35P of the Act to be treated as an Appeal. This transfer was in accordance with the statutory provisions for disposal.

3. The Appeal faced a setback when it was dismissed for default of appearance, citing the appellant's Advocate's delay due to a breakdown of his car. However, the dismissal order was set aside the next day, and the case was rescheduled for a hearing.

4. The appellant, a Division of another company post-amalgamation sanctioned by the High Court, continued the Appeal as per the High Court's orders. The judgment acknowledges the merger and the continuation of the Appeal under the specific clauses of the High Court's orders.

5. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by previous judgments, including one dated June 15, 1983, in the case of M/s. Bhopal Sugar Industries Limited, and another dated June 23, 1983, in the case of M/s. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited. These judgments, along with references to other cases favoring the appellant's stand, contributed to the Tribunal's ruling in favor of the appellant, allowing the Appeal with directions for implementation within a specified timeframe.