1987 (6) TMI 186 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Claim for rebate under Notification No. 108/78-CE rejected by Collector of Central Excise
- Central Board of Excise and Customs set aside the rejection order and ordered re-adjudication
- Tribunal directed Collector to pass a speaking order on the claim
- Collector rejected the claim stating benefit under Notification 36/76-C.E. was available
- Appeal against the Collector's order

Analysis:

The judgment involves the issue of a claim for rebate under Notification No. 108/78-CE being rejected by the Collector of Central Excise. The Central Board of Excise and Customs set aside the rejection order and ordered re-adjudication based on Notification 151/78-C.E. A revision petition was filed by the appellants to the Central Government, which was transferred to the Tribunal as Excise Appeal No. 557/80-D. The Tribunal set aside the Central Board's order and directed the Collector to pass a speaking order on the claim for the benefit claimed under Notification 108/78-C.E. The Collector, in a fresh adjudication, rejected the claim citing the availability of benefit under Notification 36/76-C.E. and the inapplicability of Notification 108/78-C.E. This appeal challenges the Collector's order.

In the hearing, the appellant's advocate relied on a previous Tribunal decision to support the appellant's entitlement to the benefit under Notification 108/78-C.E. He highlighted that the appellants had applied for a necessary certificate under Notification 36/76-C.E., but it was not issued before the rescission of the notification. The department's representative argued that the appellants had been issued a certificate under Notification 36/76-C.E., indicating that the notification applied to their factory, thus disqualifying them from the benefit under Notification 108/78-C.E.

The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the issuance of certificates to the appellants. While a certificate mentioning free sale percentages for multiple years was issued, the actual quantification was only provided for one year. The Tribunal observed that the Directorate failed to issue a certificate for the relevant year when the appellants applied. Considering these facts, the Tribunal applied the precedent from a previous case and held that the Collector's conclusion that the appellants were not entitled to the rebate due to the application of Notification 36/76-C.E. was incorrect. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Collector's order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Collector for granting relief to the appellants under Notification 108/78-C.E.