1991 (5) TMI 178 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Superintendent's communication demanding differential duty.
2. Applicability of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Relevance of prior judgments and legal precedents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Superintendent's Communication Demanding Differential Duty:
The appellants, manufacturers of soft drinks, availed MODVAT benefits on various inputs. Following Notification 203/87, which removed soft drinks from MODVAT benefits, the appellants obtained a stay from the Andhra Pradesh High Court, allowing them to pay only half the duty. Upon the vacation of the stay, the Superintendent demanded the differential duty. The appellants challenged this on the grounds that the Section 11A procedure was not followed. The Tribunal upheld the Superintendent's communication, citing the Madras High Court's decision in H.N. Mariam & Others v. Superintendent of Central Excise, which established that the charge of duty attaches upon removal of goods, and the stay only postponed the right of recovery. Therefore, the endorsement on RT 12 returns was deemed sufficient notice for the levy.

2. Applicability of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The appellants argued that the demand for differential duty was invalid without a show cause notice under Section 11A. The Tribunal referenced the Madras High Court's interpretation that Section 11A applies to cases of non-levy, short-levy, or erroneous refunds, which was not applicable here as the duty was already levied but its collection was stayed by the court. The Tribunal also distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court's decision in Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, where no assessment occurred, and the stay was only on collection, not levy.

3. Relevance of Prior Judgments and Legal Precedents:
The Tribunal examined various precedents cited by the appellants, including decisions in Kosan Metal Products Ltd., Vipul Dyes Chemicals (P) Ltd., and Doorvani Cables P. Ltd., which dealt with demands raised on RT 12 returns without proper notice under Section 11A. However, the Tribunal found these cases distinguishable as they involved disputes over classification or entitlement to notifications, whereas in the present case, the classification and duty rate were undisputed, and the only issue was the stay on collection. The Tribunal concluded that the demand was valid as it followed the High Court's order and the established classification.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the demand for differential duty. The decision emphasized that the stay order's vacation revived the duty demand, and no separate notice under Section 11A was necessary given the circumstances. The Tribunal's analysis relied heavily on the Madras High Court's precedent, reinforcing the principle that duty charges attach upon removal of goods, and stays only delay enforcement, not the levy itself.