1998 (7) TMI 226 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

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

Issue 1: Entitlement to credit of Additional Duties of Excise under Rule 56A:

The appeal involved the question of whether the appellant is entitled to take and utilize credit of Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (GSI Act, 1957) under Rule 56A. The department contended that credit under Rule 56A is available only to basic excise duty and not towards additional excise duty. The Collector (Appeals) held that credit is not available under Rule 56A of AED as the duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (GSI) Act, 1957 cannot be automatically covered under Rule 56A. The appellant argued that previous Tribunal decisions and High Court rulings supported the availability of credit under Rule 56A for additional duties of excise. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, concluded that the impugned order-in-appeal was to be set aside, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief limited to additional duties of excise and not to any cess.

Issue 2: Validity of review by Revenue under Section 35E(2) of an order of assessment on the RT 12:

In another appeal, the issue raised was the validity of a review by Revenue under Section 35E(2) of an order of assessment on the RT 12. The appellant argued that the procedure followed, with permission obtained from a superior authority to operate under Rule 56A, was valid. The Assistant Collector's permission was challenged by the department, stating it was of a general nature and did not specifically mention the availability of credit of additional duty of excise. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, found that the availability of credit of additional duty of excise under Rule 56A had already been established in a previous appeal. Regarding the permission granted by the Assistant Collector, the Tribunal held that it was not vague or of a general nature but specifically for the availment of all benefits under Rule 56A as per law. The Tribunal did not express an opinion on the quasi-judicial nature of the review of the RT 12 Assessment Memorandum as the appellant chose not to press the argument. Consequently, the impugned order-in-appeal was set aside, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgments by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS addressed the issues of entitlement to credit of Additional Duties of Excise under Rule 56A and the validity of review by Revenue under Section 35E(2) of an order of assessment on the RT 12. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in both appeals, setting aside the impugned order-in-appeal and granting consequential relief in accordance with the law and previous decisions.