1986 (12) TMI 270 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim for set-off of excise duty on goods used as inputs in the manufacture of matches; Rejection of claim by Assistant Collector of Central Excise; Appeal to Central Board of Excise & Customs; Objection on appeal not lying; Review of the rejection of claim by the Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appellants, M/s. Wimco Ltd., applied for set-off of excise duty paid on goods used as inputs in manufacturing matches, relying on Notification No. 178/77-C.E. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim citing Notification No. 201/79-C.E. and Notification No. 264/79-C.E., stating that set-off was not available as duty had been paid through banderols. The Collector, in response to the appellants' letter seeking intervention, mentioned that no relief could be granted but suggested approaching the Central Board of Excise and Customs for special permission.

2. The appellants appealed to the Central Board, challenging the Assistant Collector's order and the Collector's letter. The Central Board rejected the appeal, stating that the proper appealable order was passed by the Assistant Collector, and the appellants should have appealed against that order instead of referring the matter to the Collector. A revision petition was filed with the Central Government, which was transferred to the Tribunal as a deemed appeal.

3. Initially, a preliminary objection was raised by the Department regarding the appeal's validity, which was overruled. The arguments on the merits of the case were heard from both sides, with the appellants represented by Shri V. Lakshmikumaran and the Department represented by Smt. Saxena.

4. The rejection of the claim by the Assistant Collector was based on the appellants not availing set-off at the time of clearance of the finished product. The Tribunal considered a similar case involving M/s. Match House and remitted the matter back to the Assistant Collector for reevaluation, allowing the appellants to establish the duty paid on inputs with available records.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, held that the matter should be remitted to the Assistant Collector for reconsideration and granting relief to the appellants based on the duty paid on inputs. Smt. Saxena had no further arguments, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside all previous orders and remitting the matter for fresh consideration by the Assistant Collector.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside all lower authorities' orders and remitting the matter to the Assistant Collector for a fresh review and disposal in accordance with the law, granting relief to the appellants based on the duty paid on inputs and available records.