1984 (6) TMI 259 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 201/79 regarding duty refund on inputs.
2. Validity of availing set-off based on gate passes issued by manufacturer.
3. Compliance with procedures for exemption under Notification No. 201/79.
4. Comparison with similar cases and previous tribunal decisions.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the interpretation of Notification No. 201/79 for duty refund on inputs. The Assistant Collector ordered deposit of a sum due to incorrect availing of duty set-off by the appellants for component parts used in manufacturing. The issue centered around the requirement in para 5(b) of the notification for goods to be received under an original gate pass or approved document evidencing duty payment.

2. The appellants argued that the gate passes, even if not in their name, were valid for set-off as per the notification's language. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the Assistant Collector's decision. The appellants referred to a government decision in a similar case to support their position, emphasizing the availability of gate passes as sufficient documentation for duty set-off.

3. The Senior Departmental Representative contended that the notification should be strictly construed, similar to Rule 56A, requiring gate passes in the name of the appellant. Citing a tribunal decision, it was argued that the gate pass should be in the appellant's name to claim set-off. The failure to follow prescribed procedures for goods received through agents was highlighted as non-compliance.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the notification's requirement that goods must be received under relevant gate passes, valid only up to the first destination. It noted the absence of following the prescribed procedure for goods received through agents. Referring to a previous tribunal decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of original gate passes in enforcing duty liabilities effectively. The government decision cited lacked reasoning for relaxation, thus not influencing the Tribunal's decision.