1997 (11) TMI 234 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of exemption from duty on PVC articles under Notification 68/71.
2. Claim for refund of duty paid on PVC tapes captively consumed.
3. Interpretation of the nature of goods as PVC sheets or tapes for exemption eligibility under Notification 68/71.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appeal arose from the denial of duty exemption on PVC articles manufactured by the appellants under Notification 68/71. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the denial, stating that the benefit was only available to tapes, not sheets. The appellants argued that they had claimed exemption for PVC tapes, not sheets, and cited past judgments supporting their position. The department did not appeal the order-in-appeal that favored the appellants, leading to its finality.

Issue 2: The appellants sought a refund of duty paid on PVC tapes consumed captively from June 1972 to February 1982. The refund claim was rejected due to retrospective amendments in Central Excise Rules, allowing duty on captive consumption. The Assistant Collector denied the benefit of the notification, stating the appellants manufactured sheets, not tapes, covered by the notification.

Issue 3: The tribunal analyzed the manufacturing process to determine the nature of goods as sheets or tapes for exemption eligibility. The compound of PVC lumps and stripping was processed into tapes with specific dimensions for cable manufacture. The tribunal concluded that the material above 2 feet width constituted PVC sheets, not tapes eligible for exemption. The tribunal rejected the appellants' reliance on a previous order-in-appeal, noting it lacked findings on the nature of goods and exemption eligibility.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the denial of exemption under Notification 68/71, as the goods manufactured were deemed PVC sheets, not tapes covered by the notification. The retrospective amendments in Central Excise Rules allowed duty on captive consumption, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. The tribunal emphasized the importance of accurately determining the nature of goods for exemption eligibility, ultimately dismissing the appeal and affirming the lower authorities' decisions.