1997 (5) TMI 112 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Appeal against order passed by Collector (Appeals) declining interference with Assistant Collector's order on revised price list for industrial consumers.
2. Collection of excess amount of Rs. 250.00 per tonne from industrial consumers in 1985 for modernisation and renovation charges.
3. Disallowance of abatement of Rs. 250.00 per tonne by Assistant Collector and confirmation by Collector (Appeals).
4. Interpretation of the nature of the extra amount collected and its treatment as part of price or rebate for modernisation and renovation.
5. Whether the repayment scheme for the extra amount in 1987 constitutes discount or loan repayment.
6. Logic behind seeking deduction in 1987 for an erroneous addition in 1985.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Collector (Appeals) order upholding the Assistant Collector's decision regarding a revised price list for industrial consumers. The Assistant Collector approved the order on a revised price list dated 20-1-1987, which included an additional amount of Rs. 250.00 per tonne for modernisation and renovation charges.

2. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Soda Ash, filed multiple price lists in 1985 for traders, stockists, and industrial consumers. The price lists for industrial consumers included an extra amount of Rs. 250.00 per tonne for modernisation and renovation charges, which was collected but not abated. The appellant later proposed to repay this amount to customers starting from 1987.

3. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) disallowed the abatement of the extra amount collected from industrial consumers in 1985. They viewed this amount as part of the price rather than a separate charge for modernisation and renovation, thus rejecting the appellant's claim for refund.

4. The authorities held that the extra amount collected in 1985 was not intended for modernisation and renovation but was part of the price. The appellant's failure to seek abatement at the time of filing price lists was cited as evidence of their willingness to pay duty on the additional amount.

5. The appellant argued that the repayment scheme for the extra amount in 1987 should be treated as loan repayment rather than a discount. The circulars issued by the appellant in 1985 and 1987 supported this argument, indicating that the amount collected was for modernisation and renovation with a commitment to repay in 1987.

6. The Tribunal analyzed the language used in the circulars and concluded that the extra amount collected in 1985 was akin to a loan, to be repaid in 1987. Therefore, the question of abatement or discount under the Central Excises Act did not apply to the repayment scheme initiated by the appellant.

7. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the Department's erroneous addition of the extra amount in 1985 justified a deduction in 1987. They emphasized that an error in one year does not justify a corresponding error in a subsequent year, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

8. Ultimately, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the previous orders and dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision to disallow abatement of the extra amount collected from industrial consumers in 1985.

← Previous Next →