1980 (4) TMI 130 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption notification No. 183/62 regarding the determination of chargeability to and exemption from duty based on the value of goods under section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 versus application of tariff values.
2. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the case.
3. Alleged wrongful application of tariff values to part of the goods exempted by the notification.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns the interpretation of exemption notification No. 183/62 regarding the determination of chargeability to and exemption from duty. The petitioner, a manufacturer of blankets, argued that the Central Excise authorities had historically applied the value under section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act for deciding the eligibility for exemption under the notification. However, a change occurred in 1973 when tariff values were revised upwards, leading to a shift in the method of determining exemption eligibility. The petitioner contended that the tariff values should not have been applied for interpreting the exemption notification. Additionally, the petitioner invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel, claiming that the authorities were estopped from departing from the previous method of applying the exemption notification. The petitioner also highlighted a Trade Notice emphasizing the use of section 4 value for exemption purposes.

The judgment delves into the legal provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, particularly sections 3(2), 3(3), and 4, which govern the levy of duties and determination of value for duty purposes. The government observed that the tariff values fixed under section 3 have a limited application for levying duties once an item is deemed chargeable. The court emphasized that for interpreting exemption notifications, the value under section 4 must be considered, as it has a general application not tied to tariff values. Applying tariff values for exemption interpretation could lead to inconsistency and uncertainty, rendering the notification's value indication meaningless.

Regarding the doctrine of promissory estoppel raised by the petitioner, the judgment clarified that there is no estoppel against the government revenue. However, the court upheld the petitioner's argument that tariff values should not have been used to determine the chargeability to duty under the exemption notification. Consequently, the revision application succeeded on this point, and the government allowed the application accordingly. The issue of the alleged wrongful application of tariff values to part of the goods exempted was not addressed as it did not arise from the impugned order-in-appeal.