1983 (2) TMI 162 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Construction of Explanation I to Notification Nos. 24/75 and 25/75 - whether Rosin should be included in the computation of "total oils" for availing duty rebate.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The case involved a question regarding the construction of Explanation I to Notification Nos. 24/75 and 25/75, which provided incentives for using rice bran oil or other minor oils in manufacturing soaps. The appellant, a soap manufacturer, excluded Rosin from the calculation of "total oils" to claim the duty rebate, leading to a demand for short levies by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.

2. The Explanation defining "total oils" included various saponifiable materials like oils of vegetable, animal, and fish origin, tallow, etc. The appellant argued that Rosin, being a saponifiable material, should be excluded from the calculation. However, the Tribunal held that the inclusive definition of "total oils" encompassed all saponifiable materials, including Rosin, regardless of specific mention in the Explanation.

3. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's reliance on subsequent amendments including Rosin and a construction favoring another assessee. It clarified that subsequent amendments were for clarification purposes only and decisions in other cases could not support the appellant's argument in this case.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal focused on the quantum of duty, not the rate or value for assessment. While acknowledging that the case could have been heard by a Division Bench instead of a Special Bench, the Tribunal proceeded with the Special Bench hearing as presented.

5. In a separate judgment by two other judges, they concurred with the majority view that there were no merits in the appeal. They dismissed the appeal based on the lack of grounds supporting the appellant's contentions, despite a disagreement on a specific point with one of the judges.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld that Rosin should be included in the computation of "total oils" for availing duty rebates, rejecting the appellant's arguments and dismissing the appeal due to the lack of merit in the contentions presented.