1984 (7) TMI 386 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute regarding the dutiability of PVC Compound manufactured before 18-6-1977 but cleared on or after 18-6-1977 till 28-6-1977.
2. Claim for refund of duty paid during the period in question.
3. Interpretation of Section 5(1) of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute over the dutiability of PVC Compound cleared between 18-6-1977 and 28-6-1977. The Department asserted that duty was leviable on the product under Item 15-A of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, while the appellants contended otherwise, based on the product's manufacturing date before 18-6-1977. The key issue was whether duty could be charged under Item 15-A CET on goods manufactured prior to the change in classification. Both parties agreed that the product fell under Item No. 15A during the relevant period, but disagreed on the levy applicability to pre-18-6-1977 stocks.

2. The appellants argued that duty should not be levied on the pre-18-6-1977 stocks of PVC Compound under Item No. 15A, CET during the period in question. However, the Tribunal rejected this contention, citing precedents where the date of removal of goods, not the manufacturing date, determined duty applicability. The Tribunal referenced cases like Union of India v. The Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Kesar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India, emphasizing that duty is linked to the date of removal, not manufacture.

3. The appellants also relied on Section 5(1) of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act for a refund claim. However, the Tribunal dismissed this argument, clarifying that the exemption notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules did not constitute an amendment to a declared provision of a Finance Bill. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the exemption notification triggered Section 5(1) provisions, concluding that the appeal lacked merit and was therefore rejected.