1990 (9) TMI 207 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of amendment Notification No. 214/84 dated 9-11-1984 to the original Notification No. 108/81 dated 24-4-1981.
2. Applicability of concessional rate of duty of 50% for the period from 19-8-1984 to 8-11-1984.
3. Entitlement of the appellants to a refund of Rs. 47,59,801.01 for duty paid during the specified period.
4. Examination of the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Amendment Notification No. 214/84:
The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Notification No. 214/84, which amended Notification No. 108/81. The appellants argued that the amendment clarified that the five-year concessional duty period should be computed from the date of publication of Notification No. 108/81 in the Gazette (24-4-1981) rather than from the date of first clearance (19-8-1979). The Department initially computed the five-year period from the first clearance date, ending on 18-8-1984. However, the Tribunal found that the Department's subsequent actions, allowing concessional duty from 9-11-1984, indicated acceptance of the interpretation that the five-year period should be calculated from the publication date of Notification No. 108/81.

2. Applicability of Concessional Rate of Duty:
The appellants contended that they were entitled to the concessional rate of duty for the full five years from the publication date of Notification No. 108/81, i.e., up to 23-4-1986. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the Department's allowance of concessional duty from 9-11-1984 demonstrated that the five-year period should indeed be computed from the publication date. This interpretation aligns with the amended proviso in Notification No. 214/84, which aims to provide a five-year concessional period from the later of the first clearance date or the notification publication date.

3. Entitlement to Refund:
The appellants sought a refund for the duty paid from 19-8-1984 to 8-11-1984, arguing that this period falls within the five-year concessional duty window as clarified by Notification No. 214/84. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the Department's inconsistent stance-allowing concessional duty from 9-11-1984 but denying the refund for the preceding period-was untenable. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that the appellants are entitled to a refund for the duty paid during the disputed period, subject to the limitation period under Section 11B.

4. Limitation Period under Section 11B:
The Tribunal directed that the refund claim should be examined for compliance with the limitation period stipulated under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector was instructed to grant the refund, provided the claim falls within the prescribed limitation period.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Assistant Collector to grant the refund for the period from 19-8-1984 to 8-11-1984, subject to the limitation period under Section 11B. The decision clarified that the five-year concessional duty period should be computed from the publication date of Notification No. 108/81, affirming the appellants' entitlement to the refund.