1999 (11) TMI 252 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to excise duty demand on cut tobacco under Rule 196 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Background: M/s. Tirupati Cigarettes Ltd. contested the excise duty demand on 3440 kgs of cut tobacco under Rule 196. The dispute arose from the return of damaged cut tobacco to the original manufacturer, M/s. Deccan Tobacco Processors Ltd. (DTPL), and subsequent reprocessing.

2. Appellant's Argument: The appellant argued that they followed Rule 196B by returning defective goods to DTPL with necessary permission. They contended that their duty liability ended once the goods were returned, and any subsequent processing by DTPL was not their responsibility. They maintained that the fresh stock received was separate from the returned defective goods, absolving them of duty liability on the disputed quantity.

3. Department's Position: The Department alleged that the appellants should be liable for the duty on the 3440 kgs of cut tobacco, as the returned goods were linked to subsequent consignments. They argued that the concessional duty rate applied only when cut tobacco was used in manufacturing cigarettes, not for processing purposes. The Department upheld the duty demand based on this interpretation.

4. Adjudication and Appeal: The Assistant Collector and Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the Department, leading to the current appeal. The appellant's consultant emphasized compliance with Rule 196B and the proper accounting of the concessional stock procured, refuting the Department's claims of intentional duty evasion.

5. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal found no evidence of losses or deficiencies during the return of damaged cut tobacco, as required by Rule 196B(i). It agreed with the appellant that subsequent receipt of cut tobacco should be considered a separate transaction. The Tribunal rejected the Department's argument linking the returned goods to processing losses at DTPL, ultimately allowing the appeal and overturning the duty demand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Tirupati Cigarettes Ltd., setting aside the excise duty demand on the disputed quantity of cut tobacco under Rule 196. The judgment clarified the applicability of rules regarding return of damaged goods and the separation of transactions in excise duty matters, providing a significant legal interpretation in the context of excise regulations.