1987 (2) TMI 213 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Claim for refund under Central Excise Notification No. 8/74
- Interpretation of the term "manufacturer" in the notification
- Clubbing of clearances from multiple factories owned by the same manufacturer

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the rejection of a claim for refund under Central Excise Notification No. 8/74, which allowed duty payment at a reduced rate for certain goods. The appellant, a manufacturer of tyres, claimed refund for excess duty paid. The authorities rejected the claim as the appellant's total clearances exceeded two crores of rupees in the preceding financial year.

2. The appellant argued that clearances from each of their four factories should be considered separately for eligibility under the notification. They contended that the term "manufacturer" in the notification should be interpreted in relation to individual factories, not collectively. They also referenced a subsequent notification, No. 65/81, to support their interpretation.

3. The Departmental Representative argued that the notification clearly referred to the total clearances by a manufacturer in the previous financial year. As the appellant's total clearances exceeded the threshold, they were not entitled to the concessional assessment.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the notification and precedent cases. They held that the term "manufacturer" in the notification encompassed all factories owned by the manufacturer. Citing a ruling from the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Goa, the Tribunal emphasized that a manufacturer's total output includes all factories, regardless of separate licenses. They also referenced a similar decision by the Calcutta High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the appellant's total clearances from all factories exceeded the threshold, making them ineligible for the refund.

This detailed analysis highlights the interpretation of the term "manufacturer" in the context of the notification, the relevance of total clearances from multiple factories, and the legal basis for dismissing the appeal based on precedent and statutory interpretation.