1989 (10) TMI 126 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of set-off under Notification No. 201/79-C.E. prior to its amendment on 28-2-1982.
2. Condonation of delay in filing supplementary appeal.
3. Validity of demands raised by Superintendent of Central Excise.
4. Interpretation of Notification No. 201/79-C.E. and its amendment by Notification No. 105/82-C.E.
5. Pre-amendment scope of Notification No. 201/79-C.E. and its applicability to duty paid on specific materials.
6. Comparison of Tribunal decisions regarding set-off under the notifications pre and post-amendment.

Analysis:

1. The appellants failed to appear during the hearing but requested a decision on merits in their absence, citing previous Tribunal decisions supporting their case. The delay in filing the supplementary appeal was condoned, and the case proceeded with the respondent's representation.

2. The demands made by the Superintendent of Central Excise were based on alleged erroneous credit taken by the appellants on various materials under Notification No. 201/79-C.E. The Assistant Collector upheld these demands, leading to the present appeal.

3. The Tribunal examined the original Notification No. 201/79-C.E. and its amendment by Notification No. 105/82-C.E., noting the change in language regarding the use of inputs in manufacturing finished products. The pre-amendment period was crucial in determining the scope of the notification.

4. Referring to past Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal highlighted the differing interpretations of the notifications pre and post-amendment. The case law provided insights into the broader application of the pre-amendment notification and the restricted scope post-amendment.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the pre-amendment Notification No. 201/79-C.E. did not impose restrictions on the type of inputs eligible for duty set-off. As a result, the appellants were entitled to set-off duty on Phosphoric Acid, Nickel Catalyst, and Activated Carbon. However, further examination was required for Tin Tops and Unprinted paperpolly.

6. The Tribunal set aside the demands related to Phosphoric Acid, Nickel Catalyst, and Activated Carbon but remanded the matter concerning Tin Tops and Unprinted paperpolly to the lower authorities for re-examination. The decision was based on the Tribunal's interpretation of the notifications and previous case law.

7. Ultimately, the appeals and the condonation application were disposed of based on the Tribunal's findings and the specific application of the notifications to the appellants' case.