Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1996 (3) TMI 350 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
- Appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad regarding a rebate claim under Notification No. 132/82, dated 21-4-1982 as amended by Notification No. 193/82, dated 11-6-1982. - Disallowance of rebate for the period prior to the amended notification. - Contention of provisional sanction of rebate by Assistant Collector. - Arithmetical errors in the calculations of the rebate claim. - Interpretation of provisional assessment in relation to rebate sanction. - Applicability of the amended notification prospectively. Analysis: The appeal was made against the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding a rebate claim under specific notifications. The Assistant Collector had partially allowed the claim post the amended notification, disallowing the rebate for the period before the amendment. The appellant contended that the rebate should have been sanctioned finally, pointing out arithmetical errors. The Departmental Representative argued that the rebate was correctly granted post the amendment, emphasizing the provisional nature of the sanction. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal rejected the argument that rebate sanction needed finalization to conclude the matter. The legal provisions distinguish between provisional assessment and refund/rebate limitations. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not raised the provisional nature of the sanction before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), and previous decisions on provisional assessment limitations were deemed irrelevant to the present case. The Tribunal referenced past cases to support the decision to limit the rebate sanction to the period after the amendment, as the benefit of the amendment applied prospectively. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Collector (Appeals) order, citing relevant case law and upholding the decision to reject the appeal. The appeal was ultimately rejected based on the above analysis and legal interpretations.
|