1987 (3) TMI 225 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Tribunal's order regarding excisability of repaired cops.
2. Binding effect of Tribunal's findings on lower authorities.
3. Validity of show cause notice for payment of excise duty on repaired cops.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved an application by M/s. Prestige Engineering India (P) Ltd. seeking directions to clear repaired cops without paying Central Excise Duty and interim stay of proceedings based on a show cause notice. The applicants contended that the respondent-Collector misunderstood the Tribunal's order by disregarding the finding that repairing of cops does not constitute manufacture and the value of repair work should not be included in aggregate clearances. The Tribunal's order specifically stated that no excise duty could be demanded on repaired cops. The respondent-Collector argued that the Tribunal's decision was not binding in other cases, citing a circular, and insisted on the demand for excise duty on repaired cops.

The Tribunal clarified that the respondent-Collector was bound by its finding that no excise duty could be levied on repaired cops and that any demand for duty post the adjudication period was improper unless the Tribunal's order was overturned by a superior court. The judgment referenced a Madras High Court decision emphasizing the binding nature of Tribunal's findings on lower authorities. The Tribunal held that the respondent's view that the excisability of repaired cops was still open for discussion was incorrect, and any demand for duty on repaired cops post the adjudication period was not justified without setting aside the Tribunal's order.

The Tribunal concluded that the show cause notice demanding payment of duty on repaired cops was improper based on its previous findings. It was emphasized that the scope of re-adjudication should align with the Tribunal's previous order, and no further directions were deemed necessary. The clarification provided by the Tribunal regarding the effect of its findings in the previous order rendered the requested directions in the application unnecessary, as per the submissions made by the applicants' counsel.