1998 (7) TMI 225 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to credit of Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 under Rule 56A.
2. Validity of review by Revenue under Section 35E(2) of an order of assessment on the RT 12.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Entitlement to credit of Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 under Rule 56A:
- The appeal questioned whether the appellant could take and utilize credit of Additional Duties of Excise (GSI Act, 1957) under Rule 56A for duty paid fabrics purchased from manufacturers.
- The department contended that credit under Rule 56A was only for basic excise duty, not additional excise duty.
- The Collector (Appeals) held that credit was not available under Rule 56A for the additional duty of excise, citing that not everything under Central Excise Rules applied automatically to duties under other Acts like the GSI Act, 1957.
- The Tribunal referred to past decisions where it was established that additional duties of excise, including those under the GSI Act, 1957, were considered as excise duties and thus eligible for credit under Rule 56A.
- After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order-in-appeal was to be set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. It was clarified that credit under Rule 56A would be limited to additional duties of excise, not cess.

Issue 2: Validity of review by Revenue under Section 35E(2) of an order of assessment on the RT 12:
- The second appeal raised concerns about the validity of Revenue's review under Section 35E(2) of an assessment order on the RT 12 by a Superintendent of Central Excise.
- The appellant argued that the permission obtained from the Assistant Collector to operate under Rule 56A implied that the officer had already considered the applicability of the rule to the case, including the eligibility of additional excise duty.
- The Revenue contended that the permission granted was general and did not specifically mention the availability of credit for additional duty of excise under Rule 56A.
- The Tribunal, having already determined the availability of credit under Rule 56A in a previous appeal, found that the permission granted by the Assistant Collector was not vague or general but specifically for availing all benefits under Rule 56A as per the law.
- The Tribunal did not delve into the question of whether the review of the RT 12 Assessment Memorandum was a quasi-judicial order, as the appellant chose not to press the argument.
- Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order-in-appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant with consequential relief.

This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS covers the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's conclusions for each issue, ensuring a detailed understanding of the case.