1992 (1) TMI 234 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for concessional rate of duty under exemption Notification No. 211/77
2. Refund claim based on revised assessable value
3. Authority to revise assessable value for refund purposes
4. Validity of show cause notice for revising assessable value
5. Machinery set in motion by issuing show cause notice
6. Adjustment of refund claim based on revised assessable value
7. Justification for restricting the refund claim

Analysis:

The case involves the appellant, a manufacturer of aerated water, who filed a price list claiming an assessable value of Rs. 11 per crate and a concessional rate of duty at 25% under an exemption notification. Initially, the Assistant Collector approved the price list but rejected the concessional rate claim. Subsequently, the Collector allowed the appeal, and the appellants filed a refund claim for the excess duty paid. The Assistant Collector initially sanctioned the refund based on the original claim but later revised the assessable value and rejected a portion of the refund claim, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal.

The main contention raised by the appellant was that the authorities lacked jurisdiction to revise the assessable value for the refund claim without following proper procedures. The appellant argued that the Central Excise Authorities must initiate the process of revising the assessable value before making adjustments to refund claims. On the other hand, the department contended that they had the power to revise the assessable value while sanctioning the refund claim.

The Tribunal analyzed the sequence of events and observed that the Collector had previously directed the Assistant Collector to issue a show cause notice before making any revisions to the assessable value. The Assistant Collector did issue a show cause notice later, proposing to revise the assessable value, which was considered as setting the necessary machinery in motion. The Tribunal concluded that the department had followed the proper procedure by issuing the show cause notice and subsequently revising the assessable value for the refund claim.

Moreover, the Tribunal highlighted that the effective rate of duty should be considered when granting refunds, especially when the appellant collects duty at the tariff rate from customers. It was noted that the department was justified in revising the assessable value based on the difference between the tariff rate and the effective rate of duty. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention and upheld the decision to restrict the refund claim based on the revised assessable value.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the department had appropriately set the machinery in motion by issuing the required show cause notice and adjusting the refund claim based on the revised assessable value, which was in line with legal provisions and precedents.