1983 (9) TMI 308 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal dismissed on proforma credit for Central Excise duty on stampings & laminations used in fan manufacturing

RALLIS INDIA LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY-II

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the rejection of proforma credit for Central Excise duty paid on stampings and laminations used in ... - Issues:- Appeal against rejection of proforma credit for Central Excise duty paid on stampings and laminations used in the manufacture of electric fans.- Jurisdiction of Assistant Collector to withdraw permission for proforma credit.- Compliance with principles of natural justice in withdrawing permission.- Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding proforma credit.- Allegation of discrimination in granting proforma credit to other manufacturers.- Entitlement to proforma credit under specific notifications and trade notices.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged the rejection of proforma credit for Central Excise duty paid on stampings and laminations used in manufacturing electric fans. The Collector of Central Excise upheld the rejection based on the interpretation of Rule 56A and Notification No. 95/79. The central issue was whether the appellants were entitled to claim proforma credit for duty paid on stampings and laminations.2. The jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to withdraw permission for proforma credit was questioned. The appellant argued that the withdrawal was invalid as the Assistant Collector lacked the authority to review his own order. However, the Tribunal held that the withdrawal was prospective and did not amount to a statutory review. The issue of natural justice was also addressed, concluding that the appellant was not prejudiced by the withdrawal.3. The interpretation of statutory provisions regarding proforma credit was crucial. The Tribunal analyzed the Finance Minister's speech and a Trade Notice, emphasizing that non-statutory documents cannot override statutory provisions. The Trade Notice clarified that proforma credit could not be claimed twice for the same duty paid on stampings and laminations, as the appellants had already availed the credit for manufacturing electric motors.4. The allegation of discrimination in granting proforma credit to other manufacturers was dismissed. The Tribunal highlighted that individual permissions granted by different Assistant Collectors did not entitle the appellants to the same concession if not provided for by law. The focus remained on interpreting the law correctly rather than addressing alleged discrimination.5. Considering all aspects, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. The decision was based on the interpretation of statutory provisions, notifications, and trade notices, emphasizing that the appellants were not entitled to claim proforma credit for the duty paid on stampings and laminations used in manufacturing electric fans.