1989 (11) TMI 167 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of liability for special excise duty on goods manufactured before a change in duty exemption but cleared after the change.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals where the respondents did not appear for a personal hearing but requested a decision based on their written submissions. The issue revolved around the liability to pay special excise duty on goods manufactured before a duty change but cleared after the change. The Assistant Collector held the duty payable as the goods were cleared post-change, while the Collector (Appeals) deemed them pre-budget stock exempt from duty. The respondents cited various judgments to support their contention of non-liability, while the appellant confirmed the facts and referred to relevant decisions favoring the Revenue.

The Tribunal considered the records, written submissions, and arguments presented. The pivotal issue was settled by a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case involving pre-budget stocks of food products. The Supreme Court clarified that duty can be collected post-manufacture for administrative convenience, even though the taxable event is production. The Court emphasized that duty payment is linked to the date of removal from the factory. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the duty liability, dismissing the appeal by the appellant in the cited case.

Based on the Supreme Court's ruling and the principles established, the Tribunal in the present case held that special excise duty was payable on the Glycerin stock manufactured before the duty change but cleared after. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed. The decision was aligned with the legal precedent and the interpretation of duty liability post-manufacture as clarified by the Supreme Court.