1983 (9) TMI 283 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Determining eligibility of non-excisable goods for duty concession under Notification No. 198/76 post becoming excisable under Tariff Item 15A(1) during subsequent years.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Facts: The appeal originated as a Revision Application before the Central Government and was transferred to the Appellate Tribunal for disposal as an appeal. The case involved the appellants manufacturing Artificial and Synthetic Resins, seeking a duty concession under Notification No. 198/76 based on base clearance quantities.

2. Crucial Issue: The main issue was whether the modified resins, initially non-excisable but later brought under Tariff Item 15A(1) in 1977, were eligible for the duty concession under Notification No. 198/76 for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79.

3. Appellate Collector's View: The Appellate Collector held that since the base clearance did not include the modified resins, the excess clearance inclusive of these resins was not ascertainable, thus denying the concession for these products. He also found part of the demands to be time-barred.

4. Appellants' Arguments: The appellants contended that non-excisable goods should not be equated with exempted goods and argued for extending the concession to the modified resins. They suggested considering the base clearance as 'nil' and granting the benefit for the entire excess clearance.

5. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal analyzed the Notification's provisions and held that the modified resins, though non-excisable during the base period, should be eligible for the benefit of the notification in the incentive years when they became excisable. The Tribunal found the lower authorities' application of the exemption principle unjustified and directed the excise authorities to grant the concession to the modified resins for the incentive period.

6. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the excise authorities to extend the benefit of Notification No. 198/76 to the clearances of PVA compound grade and calibonds during the incentive period, emphasizing that the non-excisability during the base period should not disentitle the products from the duty concession in the subsequent years.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in determining the eligibility of non-excisable goods for duty concessions under specific notifications and the Tribunal's interpretation of the applicable provisions to grant relief to the appellants.