1997 (8) TMI 291 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 231/87 regarding the money credit scheme for Ethyl Alcohol.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to adjudicate cases beyond Rs. 50,000.

Interpretation of Notification No. 231/87:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras involved the interpretation of Notification No. 231/87 concerning the money credit scheme for Ethyl Alcohol. The department contended that the scheme should only apply to Ethyl Alcohol and Methyl Alcohol content, excluding denatured Ethyl Alcohol. The Collector (Appeals) had previously allowed the appeal of a party in a similar case, stating that denatured Ethyl Alcohol falls under the same classification as pure Ethyl Alcohol. The Tribunal referred to a previous order where it was held that the money credit scheme applies only to the Ethyl Alcohol content and not to Methyl Alcohol. The Tribunal emphasized the strict construction of the notification and the principle of ambiguity benefiting the government. The Chartered Accountant argued that the Tariff entry for Ethyl Alcohol includes both denatured and un-denatured forms, supporting the department's stance. However, the Tribunal concluded that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding interpretation of notifications under the Tariff did not apply in this case, as the Modvat scheme was self-contained and not issued under the Tariff. Consequently, the appeal of the department was allowed based on the previous order and the specific nature of the Modvat scheme.

Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector:
The second issue raised was regarding the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to adjudicate cases beyond Rs. 50,000. The Chartered Accountant argued that the Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction to decide cases involving amounts exceeding Rs. 50,000, and this issue was crucial as it could render the order passed without jurisdiction null and void. However, the Tribunal held that since the question of jurisdiction was not raised by the respondents at the appropriate stages of the proceedings, it was now barred by principles of res judicata. The Tribunal emphasized that all relevant points should have been raised at the proper time to avoid being precluded from raising them later. As the respondents did not challenge the jurisdiction issue before the Collector (Appeals) or in the current appeal, the Tribunal concluded that the plea could not be entertained at that stage. Therefore, the appeal was allowed without considering the jurisdictional issue, as it was not raised in a timely manner by the concerned parties.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the application of the money credit scheme for Ethyl Alcohol under Notification No. 231/87 and addressed the jurisdictional question concerning the Assistant Collector's authority to adjudicate cases beyond a certain monetary limit. The decision highlighted the importance of raising all relevant points at the appropriate stages of the legal process to prevent them from being considered later.