1991 (1) TMI 161 - SC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for modification and clarification of a judgment regarding excise duty on PVC Films.
2. Show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector questioning entitlement to refund on PVC Films.
3. Interpretation of the judgment by the Assistant Collector and arguments presented.
4. Clarification on the distinction between PVC films and sheets as per the judgment.
5. Effect of the judgment on the assessability of excise duty on crude articles produced by the assessee.
6. Scope for the department to raise contentions in future assessments.

Analysis:

1. The application before the Supreme Court sought to modify and clarify a previous judgment regarding excise duty on Crude PVC Sheets to include 'PVC Films' in the operative part. The judgment in question had allowed the appeal and exempted the assessee from excise duty on Crude PVC Sheets.

2. Following the judgment, the Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice questioning the entitlement to a refund on PVC Films manufactured by the assessee. The notice raised concerns about the applicability of the judgment to PVC Films, as it was specifically related to Crude PVC Sheets.

3. The controversy arose from a show cause notice issued earlier, where the goods were described as "Crude PVC Films/Sheets." The argument presented was that the goods produced were Crude PVC films, not finished products, and hence not excisable. The Appellate Collector had confirmed the assessment, stating that PVC films/sheets for internal consumption would attract duty.

4. The distinction between PVC films and sheets was highlighted, with arguments made regarding the interpretation of the judgment. The Court clarified that the judgment was focused on the goods produced by the assessee covered by the notice, determining them as non-excisable products.

5. The Court emphasized that the effect of the judgment was that the crude articles produced by the assessee, whether films or sheets, were not subject to excise duty. It clarified that the judgment did not express a conclusive opinion on the identity of films and sheets for excisability.

6. Additionally, the Court specified that the judgment did not prevent the department from raising legal contentions in future assessments. It allowed the department to assert any arguments permissible by law in upcoming assessments, indicating the limited scope of the judgment's application to the specific case at hand.