1987 (9) TMI 290 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing supplementary appeal.
2. Liability to pay handloom cess on back grey cloth clearances.
3. Applicability of limitation period for demanding cess.
4. Interpretation of Central Excise Notification regarding exemption from handloom cess.
5. Rejection of refund claim for handloom cess.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing a supplementary appeal as per the rules and practice, allowing the presentation after hearing the Departmental Representative (D.R.) on the matter.

2. The appellants, a composite mill manufacturing cotton fabrics, used grey coarse and medium fabrics from their production as back grey cloth for industrial purposes without paying handloom cess. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand for handloom cess for a specific period and rejected the refund claim. The appellants appealed to the Appellate Collector but were unsuccessful, leading to the current appeals.

3. The show cause notice for demanding cess was issued within a specific period. The Tribunal, based on a precedent case, determined the recoverable cess period and clarified the incorrect application of the limitation period by the Collector, emphasizing the specific time frame for cess recovery.

4. The Central Excise Notification exempted cotton fabrics from excise duty for certain processes. The Tribunal analyzed the exemption provisions and the insertion of a proviso, concluding that certain cotton fabric varieties were liable to handloom cess, contrary to the appellants' contention. The Tribunal's interpretation focused on harmonizing the notifications to uphold the liability for handloom cess on specific fabric types.

5. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim for handloom cess, stating that no refund was due based on their findings. The appeals were disposed of in line with the Tribunal's conclusions on the liability for handloom cess and the exemption provisions under the Central Excise Notification.

Overall, the judgment addressed various issues related to the liability for handloom cess, interpretation of exemption notifications, and the application of limitation periods for cess recovery, providing a detailed analysis and clarification on each aspect of the case.