2005 (2) TMI 124 - SC - Central Excise

Demand of duty - whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Notification 175 of 1986 - Held that - there is a decision of the Tribunal pertaining to the very same respondent 1999 (1) TMI 164 - CEGAT, MUMBAI in respect of the very same period which has held that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the Notification. This has happened because the respondent had submitted a classification list in respect of its product known as Betnor for approval on 6-5-1991. Before the Classification list was approved the respondent cleared its goods claiming the benefit of Notification 175/86. The Department rejected the classification list and raised a demand on the respondent for the period 1990-1992 before the Assistant Collector. The respondent s contention that it was entitled to the benefit of the Notification was accepted. The Commissioner, however, allowed the Department s appeal. The matter came up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in no uncertain terms affirmed the finding of the Assistant Collector and set aside the demand against the respondent. This decision has not been challenged by the Department - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to benefit of Notification 175 of 1986.
2. Jurisdiction of the appellant to challenge decisions of lower authorities.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Entitlement to benefit of Notification 175 of 1986
In C.A. No. 6862/1999, the appeal questioned whether the respondent should receive the benefits outlined in Notification 175 of 1986 for small scale industries. The Notification specified that such benefits were subject to not using the brand name of a third party ineligible for the exemption. Despite the debate on the respondent's entitlement, the appeal was deemed unsustainable for the Department due to a Tribunal decision favoring the respondent for the same period. The respondent's approval of the classification list for "Betnor" product before its clearance under the Notification led to the Department's rejection and subsequent demand. The Assistant Collector ruled in favor of the respondent, a decision upheld by the Tribunal unchallenged by the Department. The High Court also supported the respondent's entitlement, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's challenge without appeal from the Tribunal decision.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction to challenge lower authorities' decisions
In C.A. No. 6862/1999, the appellant's attempt to challenge the High Court's decision was dismissed as no appeal was lodged against the Tribunal's ruling for the same period. The Court maintained that collateral agitation of the issue was not permissible, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal without costs. Similarly, in C.A. No. 5247/2003, the Tribunal's decision was upheld due to the relatively low revenue involved (approximately Rs. 50,000), leading to the dismissal of the appeal while leaving the legal question open for future consideration.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the Court's stance on entitlement to statutory benefits and the jurisdictional limits on challenging lower authorities' decisions, emphasizing the importance of consistency and adherence to legal procedures in such matters.