1998 (9) TMI 398 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of concessional duty rate under Notification No. 462/86 for a specific period on motor vehicles cleared by the appellants.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 462/86 for a particular period concerning the clearance of motor vehicles by the appellants. The Department contended that the benefit should only be available from the date a Fuel Efficiency Certificate was issued by the competent authority, which was on 5-6-1989. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, stating that the appellants were entitled to the benefit from 22-5-1989 onwards, not for the period from 10-3-1989 to 22-5-1989 when no certificate was available.

During the appeal, the appellant's consultant argued that the denial of the benefit for the period in question was unjustified as the vehicles met the fuel efficiency norms even without the certificate during that time. The consultant emphasized that the benefit should not be restricted only to the date of certificate issuance and cited a previous Tribunal decision to support this argument. The consultant highlighted that the vehicles cleared during the disputed period had already been certified as fuel-efficient based on a prototype cleared earlier.

On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (DR) emphasized that as per the explanation in Notification 462/86, a certificate was a prerequisite for availing the benefit, and the date of certificate issuance was crucial. Since the certificate was issued on 22-5-1989, the benefit could not be extended for the period from 10-3-1989 to 22-5-1989, as correctly decided by the authorities below.

The Tribunal carefully analyzed the provisions of Notification No. 462/86, which required a certificate from a designated officer for fuel-efficient vehicles. The Tribunal noted that although the prototype was sent for testing in November 1988, it was only certified as fuel-efficient on 22-5-1989. Therefore, the date of certificate issuance was deemed the relevant date for extending the benefit under the notification. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, stating that there was no legal error in denying the benefit for the disputed period and rejected the appeal accordingly.