1984 (7) TMI 358 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 71/78 regarding exemption and assessable value.
2. Whether the duty collected but not paid to the government should be included in the assessable value.
3. Impact of retrospective amendment of the Central Excises Act in 1982 on the interpretation of the law.
4. Determination of duty payable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a dispute over the interpretation of Notification No. 71/78 regarding the exemption granted to manufacturers of Sodium Silicate. The appellants availed the exemption but did not pass it on to buyers or pay the duty collected to the government. The Assistant Collector treated the entire duty-cum-value as assessable value, leading to a demand for differential duty. The appellant argued that redetermination of assessable value after considering the exemption is against the law, citing relevant court decisions (Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Union of India and M/s. Bizi Industries v. Supdt of Central Excise).

2. The Departmental Representative contended that duty collected but not paid to the government should increase the assessable value as per Section 4(4)(b)(ii) of the Central Excises Act. The retrospective amendment in 1982 clarified that only the money paid as duty is considered duty payable under the Act. The effective duty payable under the Act includes the duty resulting from exemptions, as per the amendment.

3. The retrospective amendment of the Central Excises Act in 1982 resolved the ambiguity regarding the duty payable under the Act. The saving clause in the Finance Bill, 1982 validated duties collected during a specific period and clarified that only money paid as duty should be considered as duty payable. This retrospective clarification impacted the interpretation of the law post-1982.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the retrospective amendment's effect on the case and concluded that money collected in excess of the effective duty must form part of the assessable value unless deductible for specific reasons. Since the appellants did not claim it as a permissible deduction and maintained it as duty, the Tribunal upheld the inclusion of the money in the assessable value, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of the retrospective amendment in determining duty payable under the Central Excises Act.