1992 (10) TMI 182 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Notification No. 46/83-C.E. to exports to Nepal.
2. Interpretation of the term "for home consumption" in Notification No. 46/83-C.E.
3. Relevance of past practices and other notifications in interpreting Notification No. 46/83-C.E.
4. Validity of the lower authority's decision on duty and cess.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Notification No. 46/83-C.E. to Exports to Nepal:
The primary issue is whether the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 46/83-C.E. applies to Kraft Paper exported to Nepal. The appellant's factory had paid duty at the concessional rate for exports to Nepal, which the Central Excise Officers found contrary to the provisions of Notification No. 46/83-C.E. The officers believed that clearances for export to Nepal were liable to duty under S. No. 10 of Notification 44/83-C.E., leading to a short payment of Rs. 1,80,488.10 in duty and Rs. 288.78 in cess.

2. Interpretation of the Term "for Home Consumption" in Notification No. 46/83-C.E.:
The appellant argued that the term "for home consumption" in Notification No. 46/83-C.E. was an inadvertent error and should not exclude exports to Nepal from the concessional rate of duty. They pointed out that the term did not appear in the predecessor Notification No. 128/77 or the successor Notification No. 25/84. They argued that the notification aimed to provide concessional rates to small paper mills based on annual clearances, irrespective of whether the paper was for home consumption or export.

However, the Tribunal held that the language of the notification was clear and unambiguous. The term "for home consumption" explicitly excluded exports to Nepal from the concessional rate. The Tribunal emphasized that it is not within its purview to alter the clear wording of a statute, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Hemraj Goverdhan Dass.

3. Relevance of Past Practices and Other Notifications:
The appellant referenced practices in the Calcutta-I Collectorate, where exports to Nepal were treated as home consumption under different notifications (85/85 and 77/85). They argued that this practice should extend to Notification No. 46/83-C.E. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that practices in one Collectorate do not establish an all-India practice and that the context of the notifications differed.

The appellant also cited the Tribunal's decision in CCE, Bombay v. G.K. Auto Industries, where the term "clearances" in a different notification was interpreted to include exports. The Tribunal found this case inapplicable as it involved a different notification (176/77) and a different context.

4. Validity of the Lower Authority's Decision on Duty and Cess:
The Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision, which confirmed the amounts of excise duty and cess but did not impose any penalty on the appellant. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authority's interpretation that Notification No. 46/83-C.E. applied only to clearances for home consumption and not to exports to Nepal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming that the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 46/83-C.E. does not extend to exports to Nepal. The language of the notification was deemed clear, and the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding inadvertent errors or past practices. The decision of the lower authority was upheld in its entirety.

← Previous Next →