1996 (5) TMI 176 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of rebate under Notification No. 36/76 - whether on excess production or clearance.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Facts and Background: The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of rebate under Notification No. 36/76 dated 25-2-1976. The appellants had produced excess sugar during 1977-78 and claimed concessional duty rates on the excess production even after the rescinding of the said Notification on 16-8-1978. The Assistant Collector reduced the refund claim, leading to an appeal by the appellants.

2. Appellant's Argument: The appellant's counsel argued that the Notification provided for concessional duty rates on production, not just on clearance, effective before the rescinding date. It was contended that since the excess production was completed before the rescinding date, they should be entitled to the concessional rates even post-rescinding. The lower authorities were criticized for not considering the excess production and deciding based solely on the quantity cleared before 16-8-1978.

3. Respondent's Argument: The respondent's representative submitted that the concessional duty rates ceased to apply after the rescinding of the Notification on 16-8-1978. It was emphasized that while duty is levied on production, the point of collection is the date of clearance. The argument was made that no clearance post-rescinding date should benefit from the concessional rates under the rescinded Notification.

4. Judgment: The Tribunal analyzed the contentions of both sides and noted the excess production during 1977-78 and the rescinding of Notification No. 36/76 on 16-8-1978. The tribunal held that the concessional duty rates under the rescinded Notification were not available post-rescinding date, as there was no saving clause in the rescinding Notification. The principle that duty rates prevail on the date of clearance was reiterated, citing legal precedent. As a result, the tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision and dismissed the appeal.

5. Conclusion: The tribunal concluded that the concessional duty rates under Notification No. 36/76 did not extend beyond the rescinding date of 16-8-1978. The absence of a saving clause in the rescinding Notification meant that the concessional rates were not applicable to any clearance post-rescinding. The judgment emphasized the importance of the date of clearance in determining the duty rates applicable, in line with established legal principles.