1987 (1) TMI 247 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Tariff Item 14-H regarding duty on oxygen gas.
2. Whether the appellant was liable to pay duty on oxygen gas supplied to M/s Goel Gases.
3. Application of the concept of compressed gases to the case.
4. Double charging of duty on the same commodity.

Analysis:

The case involved a dispute regarding the duty liability on oxygen gas supplied by the appellant to M/s Goel Gases. The appellant contended that the gas supplied was not covered under Tariff Item 14-H during the relevant period. The appellant argued that the term "Compressed Gases" should be interpreted as understood in the trade and industry, citing a Supreme Court judgment in a similar context. The appellant highlighted that no pressure was applied by them, and duty was paid by M/s Goel Gases after compressing the gas into cylinders. The appellant asserted that the impugned order was illegal and incorrect due to the change in the Tariff Entry effective from 18-6-1977.

The Revenue, represented by the S.D.R., supported the findings of the Collector regarding the duty liability on the oxygen gas supplied by the appellant. The Tribunal, comprising S/Shri S.D. Jha, I.J. Rao, and P.C. Jain, observed that the Supreme Court judgment on compressed carbon dioxide was directly relevant to the case. The Tribunal noted that the gas supplied by the appellant had been compressed by M/s Goel Gases, and duty had already been charged on the same as compressed oxygen gas. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that charging duty again on the appellant for the same commodity under the same description would be illegal and amounted to double charging. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on this finding.

The Tribunal's decision focused on the substantive issue of duty liability and did not address the plea of limitation raised by the appellant's advocate. By applying the principles established in the Supreme Court judgment and considering the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the illegality of double charging duty on the same commodity. The judgment provided clarity on the interpretation of Tariff Item 14-H and the application of the concept of compressed gases in determining duty liability, ensuring a fair and just resolution in the matter.