1987 (5) TMI 146 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of Dharmada (charity) receipts in the assessable value for Central Excise duty.
2. Applicability of the extended period of limitation for the demand of duty.
3. Res judicata applicability in the context of previous decisions on similar issues.

Summary:

1. Inclusion of Dharmada (charity) receipts in the assessable value for Central Excise duty:
The primary issue was whether Dharmada receipts, charged at 0.02 paise per kg, should be included in the assessable value of snuff for the purpose of Central Excise duty. The appellant argued that Dharmada receipts are charity receipts and should not be taxed, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), New Delhi v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. (116 I.T.R. 60), which held that Dharmada receipts are customary and exempt from tax. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, noting that there was no evidence that the Dharmada receipts were used for any purpose other than charity. Consequently, the Tribunal held that Dharmada receipts do not form part of the normal price and should not be included in the assessable value.

2. Applicability of the extended period of limitation for the demand of duty:
The appellant contended that the extended period of limitation was not applicable as there was no suppression of facts or fraud on their part. The Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue, as the appeal was allowed on the primary ground regarding the non-taxability of Dharmada receipts. Therefore, the point of limitation was not addressed in detail.

3. Res judicata applicability in the context of previous decisions on similar Issues:
The respondent argued that the issue of Dharmada receipts had already been decided in a previous order, and thus, the principle of res judicata should apply. However, the appellant countered that the lower authorities had re-adjudicated the matter, and the Tribunal is not bound by its previous decisions unless fresh facts come to light. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, referencing the Calcutta High Court judgment in Conterman Peipers (India) Limited v. Additional Secretary to the Government of India (1986 (26) E.L.T. 471 (Cal.)), which stated that the Tribunal is not a court and its earlier decisions are not res judicata or precedent for subsequent decisions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeal, directing the Revenue authorities to give consequential effect to this order. The Tribunal concluded that Dharmada receipts do not form part of the assessable value for Central Excise duty, and thus, the appellant's appeal was allowed on this ground. The issue of limitation was not addressed due to the primary ground being sufficient for the decision.