1985 (1) TMI 324 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the appeal.
2. Applicability of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to the Produce Cess Act, 1966.
3. Interpretation of Section 15(2) of the Produce Cess Act, 1966.
4. Applicability of appeal procedures under Section 10 of the Produce Cess Act, 1966 versus the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to Hear the Appeal:

The appellants raised a preliminary objection regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that the case was not validly transferred to the Tribunal as it was under Section 10 of the Produce Cess Act, 1966, not Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal, however, found that the revision proceedings pending before the Government of India were indeed under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and thus were rightly transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35P(2) of the same Act. The Tribunal concluded that it had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

2. Applicability of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to the Produce Cess Act, 1966:

The Tribunal examined Section 15(2) of the Produce Cess Act, 1966, which states that the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, including those relating to refunds and exemptions from duty, shall apply to the levy and collection of duties of excise on any produce specified in the Second Schedule of the Produce Cess Act, 1966. The Tribunal determined that the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, were applicable to the present refund claim under the Produce Cess Act, 1966.

3. Interpretation of Section 15(2) of the Produce Cess Act, 1966:

The Tribunal emphasized that Section 15(2) of the Produce Cess Act, 1966, makes it clear that the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the rules made thereunder, including those relating to refunds and exemptions from duty, apply to the Produce Cess Act, 1966. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that the words "so far as may be" limited the applicability of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, to only certain provisions. The Tribunal concluded that the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, regarding refunds and exemptions were fully applicable to the Produce Cess Act, 1966.

4. Applicability of Appeal Procedures under Section 10 of the Produce Cess Act, 1966 versus the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:

The Tribunal analyzed Section 10 of the Produce Cess Act, 1966, which provides for appeals against assessments made under Section 9 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that Section 10 does not cover refund claims, which are addressed under Section 6 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the appellate procedure under Section 10 of the Produce Cess Act, 1966, was not applicable to refund claims. Instead, the Tribunal held that the appellate procedures under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, were applicable to refund claims under the Produce Cess Act, 1966, as per Section 15(2) of the latter Act.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that it had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, including the appellate procedures, were applicable to the refund claims under the Produce Cess Act, 1966. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' primary objection and upheld the applicability of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, to the present case.

← Previous Next →