1984 (7) TMI 378 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 70/77-CE regarding exemption of excise duty on bunker oil supplied to Indian Navy ships.
- Application of Central Excise Rules, specifically rule 12 and rule 13, in the context of duty exemption claims.
- Comparison of Notification 70/77-CE with Notification 29/83-CE to ascertain the scope of exemption.
- Analysis of the Delhi High Court judgment in M/s. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation v. Superintendent of Central Excise, Mirzapur.
- Examination of the provisions of the Central Excise Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982 in relation to duty exemptions.

Detailed Analysis:

The judgment involves three appeals against orders-in-appeal by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, all related to refund claims of excise duty on bunker oil supplied to Indian Navy ships. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 70/77-CE, which exempted excisable goods supplied as stores for consumption on Indian Navy vessels from excise duty. The Assistant Collector initially rejected the claims, citing that the exemption only applied to duties under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957.

The counsel for the appellant argued that the bunker oil was supplied under rule 13, exempting it from excise duty, and not under rule 12 as assumed by the authorities. The notification clearly exempted the entire excise duty leviable on the goods supplied to the Indian Navy ships. The judgment highlighted the misconception of the lower authorities regarding the scope of the exemption under Notification 70/77-CE, emphasizing that the exemption covered both basic and special excise duties.

The judgment also addressed the contention raised by the department's counsel, citing a Delhi High Court judgment involving a similar situation with aluminum exports. However, the Tribunal concluded that the Delhi High Court ruling did not apply to the present case, as it involved a different notification. The Tribunal found the actions of the lower authorities incorrect and set them aside, directing the refund claims to be paid within three months from the date of the order.

Moreover, a dissenting opinion was presented by one of the Members, G. Sankaran, who disagreed with the interpretation of Notification No. 70/77-CE. The dissenting Member argued that the exemption was limited to the duty leviable under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, based on the provisions of the Central Excise Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982. This differing view led to a comprehensive analysis of the legal framework governing excise duty exemptions, ultimately impacting the outcome of the appeals.