1994 (12) TMI 212 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Admissibility of higher notional credit in case of special excise duty under Rule 57B of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:

1. The issue in this appeal revolves around the admissibility of higher notional credit concerning special excise duty as per Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant's representative acknowledged that previous judgments by the Tribunal had ruled against their position, highlighting the absence of any contrary judgment in their favor.

2. The appellant's argument centered on the contention that the basic issue had not been fully considered in the previous judgments and that special excise duty should be eligible for notional credit under Rule 57B as it falls under the category of "specified duty."

3. The Department's representative reiterated the arguments put forth by the Department.

4. The Tribunal found that the issue had been thoroughly discussed in previous judgments, citing relevant extracts from the Order of the Tribunal in the case of Sarda Service Corporation to elucidate the interpretation of Rule 57B concerning the credit of specified duty.

5. The Tribunal clarified that Rule 57A allows for the credit of actual specified duty, while Rule 57B provides for credit at a higher rate in cases where goods are produced by small-scale units availing exemptions under specific notifications. The condition for such higher credit is that the notification should explicitly mention the grant of credit at a higher rate.

6. The Tribunal further analyzed Notification No. 175/86, emphasizing that it grants exemption solely from basic excise duty and not special excise duty. This interpretation was supported by a Supreme Court judgment regarding the limitation of exemptions granted under specific notifications.

7. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the notification should extend to special excise duty, emphasizing that the grant of higher credit is limited to basic excise duty as per Rule 57B and the proviso therein.

8. The Tribunal addressed the appellant's assertion regarding the previous Tribunal order being sub-silentio, explaining that the decision was not based on any overlooked legal points. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appeal based on the reasons and analysis provided.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, emphasizing that the grant of higher credit under Rule 57B is restricted to basic excise duty and does not extend to special excise duty unless explicitly mentioned in the relevant notifications.