2017 (4) TMI 1302 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N.130/82-C.E., dated 20-4-1982 - bleaching and stentering of cotton fabrics without aid of power or (steam) - denial on the ground that the power was used in lifting of water and also for transferring of fabrics - Held that - the matter reached to the Hon ble Supreme Court who vide its order dated 4-1-2008 observed that the exemption was not admissible for the purpose of re-computation - In the instant case, the Commissioner by its impugned order has implemented the direction of the Hon ble Supreme Court and computed the duty. There is no calculation mistake in duty. When it is so, then we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 130/82-C.E. for duty exemption.
2. Impact of subsequent amendment through Notification No. 35/99 on duty liability.
3. Validity of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. Applicability of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the Tribunal.
5. Calculation of duty by the Commissioner in compliance with the Supreme Court's order.
6. Justification for upholding the impugned order-in-original, including penalty.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the interpretation of Notification No. 130/82-C.E., dated 20-4-1982, concerning duty exemption for bleaching and stentering of cotton fabrics without the use of power or steam. The appellant claimed exemption but was denied due to the use of power in specific processes, leading to duty liability.

2. The subsequent amendment through Notification No. 35/99, dated 4-8-1999, introduced an explanation regarding the use of power and its impact on duty liability. The appellant argued that this amendment was not considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order, suggesting that the Supreme Court's decision was flawed.

3. The Tribunal addressed the validity of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 4-1-2008, emphasizing that the Supreme Court's orders carry the weight of law. The appellant's failure to challenge the Supreme Court's decision through a miscellaneous application limited the Tribunal's ability to alter the direction.

4. Regarding the applicability of the Supreme Court's direction, the Tribunal reiterated that the Commissioner had correctly implemented the Supreme Court's order by computing the duty for the specified period. The Tribunal highlighted the impossibility of correcting the Supreme Court's direction and upheld the implementation by the Commissioner.

5. The Commissioner's calculation of duty in compliance with the Supreme Court's order was found to be accurate, with no identified mistakes. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there were no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and sustained it, citing the reasons provided by the Commissioner.

6. Ultimately, both appeals were dismissed, upholding the order-in-original entirely, including the penalty imposed. The Tribunal's decision to sustain the impugned order was based on the correct implementation of the Supreme Court's direction by the Commissioner and the absence of calculation errors in the duty assessment.