1996 (7) TMI 355 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 184/81 regarding levy of duty on tea produced in different zones.
2. Validity of refund claim on tea manufactured in district Dibrugarh during a specific period.
3. Rejection of full refund claim by Assistant Collector and subsequent appeal to the Tribunal.
4. Challenge to the calculation made by the Assistant Collector.
5. Compliance with Gauhati High Court's judgment in assessing duty on tea grown in district Dibrugarh.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case revolves around the interpretation of Notification No. 184/81, which divided India into zones for charging duty on tea. Initially, district Lakhimpur was included in Zone V, but later, a subsequent notification in January 1982 added the district of Dibrugarh to Zone V as well.

Issue 2:
The appellant, manufacturing tea in Dibrugarh, filed a refund claim for duty paid at the higher rate of Rs. 1.30 per kg instead of the correct rate of 40 paise per kg for the period between 5-11-1981 to 28-1-1982. The Assistant Collector initially rejected the claim, but the lower appellate authority and subsequently CEGAT ruled in favor of the appellants, granting them the refund.

Issue 3:
Upon reconsideration, the Assistant Collector granted a partial refund of Rs. 26,329.28 out of the total claim of Rs. 91,161.18, citing judgments of Gauhati High Court. The appellants appealed to the Tribunal after the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) ruled against them.

Issue 4:
The appellants challenged the Assistant Collector's calculation of the refund amount, arguing that the entire claim should have been allowed. They contended that the reduction without a show cause notice or hearing was unjustified, but the Tribunal found no merit in this challenge.

Issue 5:
The key contention was the compliance with Gauhati High Court's judgment directing duty assessment on tea grown in Dibrugarh at 40 paise per kg for the relevant period. The lower authorities had granted the refund based on this judgment, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the specific direction regarding tea grown in Dibrugarh.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the lower authorities' decisions based on the interpretation of the relevant notification and the directives of the Gauhati High Court. The challenge to the Assistant Collector's calculation was dismissed, and the refund claim was granted in accordance with the court's directions.