Tribunal upholds refund claim, rejects Collector's appeal on excise goods assessable value.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, upholding the order of the Collector (Appeals) that set aside the Assistant Collector's decision rejecting a refund claim for packing charges inclusion in the assessable value of excisable goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the subsequent Assistant Collector's rejection of the refund claim was beyond his competence as it amounted to a review of a decision already in favor of the respondent. The Tribunal held that the successor Assistant Collector could not disregard the earlier decision, and directed the department to grant consequential relief within three months.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against order of Collector (Appeals) setting aside Assistant Collector's order rejecting refund claim for packing charges inclusion in assessable value.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Collector of Central Excise against the order of the Collector (Appeals) setting aside the Assistant Collector's order rejecting a refund claim for packing charges. The issue revolved around the inclusion of packing charges in the assessable value of excisable goods manufactured by the respondent. The Assistant Collector had initially held that packing charges were includible in the assessable value, but subsequent orders by the Appellate Collector and the Assistant Collector in 1980 favored the respondent's contention that no duty should be collected on packing charges due to substantial sales in loose condition.

The Appellate Tribunal noted that the protest against inclusion of packing charges had been decided in favor of the respondent by the Assistant Collector in 1980. The Tribunal emphasized that the subsequent Assistant Collector's rejection of the refund claim in 1982 was essentially a review of the earlier order, which was beyond his competence. The Tribunal held that the second Assistant Collector could not disregard the earlier decision based on amended provisions of law, especially when the matter had already been concluded in favor of the respondent.

The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the decision of the Delhi High Court in the Bawa Potteries case, highlighting that limited power of review under Section 11A did not permit a successor Assistant Collector to review a matter conclusively decided by his predecessor. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and directed the department to grant consequential relief as per the order of the Collector (Appeals) within three months from the date of the Tribunal's order.

---