Excise relief claims under notification and credit-sales interest were split: one failed, the other went back for factual determination.

Entitlement to excise relief under Notification No. 198/76 was rejected because the claim was covered against the assessee by Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Union of India. Relief for interest on credit sales was accepted in principle in light of Government of India v. MRF Ltd., but the relevant facts had to be placed before the Assistant Collector for determination. The notification-based claim therefore failed, while the credit-sales issue was remitted for fresh factual consideration; the connected appeal was dismissed as governed by precedent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to relief under Notification No. 198/76 dated 16-6-1976. (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to relief on account of interest on credit sales, and whether the matter required reconsideration by the Assistant Collector.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to relief under Notification No. 198/76 dated 16-6-1976.

Analysis: The claim under the notification was held to be covered against the assessee by the earlier decision in Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Union of India.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to any relief under this head.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to relief on account of interest on credit sales, and whether the matter required reconsideration by the Assistant Collector.

Analysis: Relief on account of interest on credit sales was held to be available in view of the decision in Government of India v. MRF Ltd., but the factual material required for granting such relief had to be placed before the Assistant Collector for determination.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to consideration of relief on this ground, and the issue was remitted to the Assistant Collector for fresh determination.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of the credit-sales issue, while the notification-based claim failed, and the connected appeal was dismissed as covered by precedent.

---