1990 (8) TMI 279 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 84/69 for excess sugar manufactured during a specific period.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellants manufactured Vacuum Pan Sugar eligible for rebate under Notification No. 108/78. They claimed a rebate for excess sugar produced, which was rejected by the Asstt. Collector and upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The appellants argued that their case aligns with previous Tribunal orders. The respondents contended that the excess sugar under Notification No. 108/78 is quantity rebate, not wholly exempt from duty. They highlighted other notifications exempting specific sugar varieties. The appellants countered, stating that the intention of Notification No. 84/69 is to cover sugar exempted under Notification No. 108/78.

The central issue was whether the appellants are entitled to the rebate of additional excise duty on sugar under Notification No. 84/69. Notification No. 84/69 exempts all sugar varieties wholly exempt from basic excise duty from additional excise duty. The respondents argued that only sugar varieties wholly exempt from basic excise duty are covered, which the disputed sugar was not. However, the Tribunal found the emphasis on basic excise duty exemption irrelevant, as the excess quantity was wholly exempt from payment. The Tribunal clarified that the rebate under Notification No. 108/78 wholly exempted basic excise duty on the sugar in question.

The contention that only sugar varieties wholly exempt under specific notifications are covered by Notification No. 84/69 was dismissed. The Tribunal referenced notifications exempting Palmyra and Khandsari Sugar from additional duty, emphasizing that the separate exemptions for these sugars indicate Notification No. 84/69 applies to sugar under T.I. 1(i). Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal based on previous orders and the interpretation of relevant notifications, rejecting the department's arguments.