1984 (7) TMI 364 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Central Excise notifications No. 128/77 and No. 201/79.
2. Correct method for availing concessions and exemptions under the notifications.
3. Challenge to the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II under Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act.
4. Discrepancy in determining duty payable on paper production.
5. Utilization of credit account under Notification No. 201/79 for payment of duty on finished goods.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the interpretation of Central Excise notifications No. 128/77 and No. 201/79. Notification No. 128/77 provided exemptions for specified varieties of paper mills based on their annual installed capacity, while Notification No. 201/79 exempted excisable goods based on the duty already paid on the inputs used in manufacturing. The dispute arose regarding the correct application and interplay of these notifications in the context of duty liability on paper production.

2. The appellants, engaged in paper manufacturing, were availing concessions under the mentioned notifications. The issue was whether they correctly followed the prescribed method for determining duty payable and availing the concessions. The Superintendent of Central Excise issued demand notices for differential duty amounts, alleging incorrect availing of concessions and duty calculation methods by the appellants.

3. The order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II under Section 35A of the Act was challenged by the appellants. The Collector's order directed re-calculation of the duty amount based on the duty leviable at the tariff rate minus duty on inputs used in paper production. The appellants contested this method, arguing it would result in denial of concessions and payment of excess duty.

4. The dispute also involved a discrepancy in determining the duty payable on paper production. The Collector's order emphasized calculating the concessional rate under Notification No. 128/77 based on the duty leviable, which was the tariff rate modified by Notification No. 201/79. The appellants argued that their method of determining duty first under Notification No. 128/77 was correct and aligned with the purpose of the notifications.

5. The utilization of the credit account under Notification No. 201/79 for payment of duty on finished goods was a crucial aspect of the case. The appellants contended that the procedure allowed for utilizing credits towards duty payment on finished products, and the lower authorities' method was incorrect and not in line with the sanctioned procedure. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief to the appellants within a specified timeframe for rectification by the excise authorities.