1985 (12) TMI 272 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Grant of rebate of duty on excess production of sugar under Notification No. 108/78-C.E.
2. Validity of the Review Show Cause Notice issued by the Government of India.
3. Admissibility of the miscellaneous application for amending the Review Show Cause Notice.
4. Time limitation for demanding recovery of excess rebate.
5. Consideration of exports made by the respondent in relation to the rebate claim.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute regarding the grant of rebate of duty on excess production of sugar under Notification No. 108/78-C.E. The respondent firm had availed excess rebate on sugar exported without payment of duty. The Government of India issued a Review Show Cause Notice challenging the Appellate Collector's decision, stating that only the quantity cleared on payment of duty was eligible for rebate.

2. The validity of the Review Show Cause Notice was contested by the appellant. The Government argued that the exported quantity ineligible for duty payment should not be included in the rebate calculation. The Principal Collector sought to amend the notice to recover an additional amount from the respondent based on the total quantity exported.

3. The admissibility of the miscellaneous application to amend the Review Show Cause Notice was questioned. The Tribunal noted that the amendment sought exceeded the original notice and the time lag between the original notice and the amendment was significant. Consequently, the application for amendment was rejected.

4. The issue of time limitation for demanding recovery of excess rebate was crucial. The department claimed that the extended period applied due to the respondent's failure to disclose exports. However, the respondent argued that exports were conducted under supervision and with departmental knowledge, negating the claim of wilful suppression.

5. The Tribunal deliberated on the exports made by the respondent in relation to the rebate claim. It was observed that the exports were conducted under bond and with departmental oversight. As the department was aware of the exports and the necessary documentation was filed, the plea of suppression by the respondent was deemed unsustainable. Therefore, the extended period for recovery was not applicable, leading to the rejection of the miscellaneous application and the appeal.