Rule 57E certificate relief upheld where differential duty treatment could not be denied for one period after being granted for another.

Differential duty paid after revision of assessable value supported entitlement to Certificate A under Rule 57E for the earlier period, where similar relief had already been granted for the later period. Refusal to extend the same treatment to 1997-98 was treated as without valid reason and discriminatory in effect, so the appellate direction granting the certificate was sustained. Once the certificate was issued, the basis for any refund claim no longer survived. Objections alleging excess appellate jurisdiction and suppression were not accepted, and the departmental challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to Certificate A under Rule 57E in respect of differential duty paid for 1997-98, and whether the Revenue could succeed in challenging the appellate direction permitting such certificate.

Analysis: The assessee had paid differential duty after revision of assessable value, and a similar certificate had been issued for the later period 1998-99. The refusal to grant the same treatment for 1997-98 was found to be without valid reason and discriminatory in effect. Once the appellate authority removed that arbitrariness and the assessee obtained the certificate, the basis for any refund claim ceased to survive. The objections based on alleged excess of appellate jurisdiction and suppression were not accepted.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the certificate under Rule 57E, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order was sustained and the departmental appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where differential duty has been paid and similar relief has already been granted for an identical later period, refusal of the corresponding certificate for the earlier period without valid reason is arbitrary and cannot be sustained.

---