1988 (6) TMI 157 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal dismisses appeal over RT-12 return reassessment, emphasizes proper legal procedures.

HOOGHLY DOCK AND PORT ENGINEERS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) order, which rejected the plea for reassessment of the RT-12 return ... Classification Issues:- Appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) rejecting plea for reassessment of RT-12 return for April 1983.- Assessment of RT-12 return by Superintendent without affording an opportunity of being heard.- Claim for benefit of exemption notification not made in the classification list.- Jurisdiction of Superintendent to grant benefit of exemption notification in RT-12 assessment.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) rejecting the appellant's plea for reassessment of RT-12 return for April 1983. The appellants had manufactured and cleared an ocean-going vessel for Kandia Port Trust and paid Excise duty on 23-4-1983. The RT-12 return for April 1983 was submitted by the appellants on 11-5-1983 and assessed by the Superintendent on 28-11-1984. The appellants contended that the Superintendent assessed the RT-12 without giving them an opportunity to be heard and ante-dated the assessment. They claimed that the Superintendent had no authority to grant the benefit of an exemption notification not claimed in the classification list. The appellant's plea was that the impugned order was not legally tenable.The key issue raised was whether the Superintendent had the authority to grant the benefit of an exemption notification not claimed by the appellant in the classification list. The appellant argued that they were entitled to the benefit of an exemption notification exempting ocean-going vessels from excise duty, but they had not claimed it in the classification filed. The Tribunal held that once a classification list is approved, any challenge to it can only be made through proper legal channels. The Superintendent, being a subordinate authority, did not have the power to grant the benefit of an exemption notification not claimed in the classification list. Referring to a Special Bench decision, the Tribunal concluded that the Superintendent could not address the appellant's grievance regarding the exemption notification, as he lacked the jurisdiction to do so. Therefore, the appellant's claim for the benefit of the notification could not be addressed by the Superintendent.In light of the arguments presented, the Tribunal found that the impugned order was legally sustainable. They held that the Superintendent did not have the authority to delve into the matter of the exemption notification, and the appellant's contention regarding the ante-dating of the RT-12 return should be raised administratively. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal did not find any merit in the appellant's arguments. The decision was based on the legal principle that the Superintendent could not grant the benefit of an exemption notification not claimed in the classification list, and the appellant's grievances could only be addressed through proper legal procedures.