1996 (6) TMI 267 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal directs comprehensive order on duty demand withdrawal request

COASTAL GASES & CHEMICALS (P) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., HYDERABAD

COASTAL GASES & CHEMICALS (P) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., HYDERABAD - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 526 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Appeal against communication of the learned Collector dated 11-3-1992.2. Extension of the benefit of Rule 56B to M/s. Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. (CFL).3. Demand of duty from the appellants for not being entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 235/85.4. Appellants seeking withdrawal of the demand in terms of the facility given under Rule 56B.5. Entitlement of the appellants to the benefit of Rule 56B.6. Clearances made under Notification No. 235/85 and Rule 56B.Analysis:1. The appellants appealed against the communication of the learned Collector dated 11-3-1992, which stated that they had no locus standi regarding an order dated 8-1-1988 by CCE, Guntur. The order withdrew the facility of Rule 56B for the movement of impure CO2. The appellants had earlier approached the Jurisdictional Collector following directions from a Tribunal order, which extended the benefit of Rule 56B to M/s. Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. The Collector's order of 8-1-1988 restored the facility under Rule 56B for the movement of impure CO2 from CFL to another party.2. The appellants, as recipients of the gas, sought the benefit of the facility under Rule 56B granted to the supplier. The appellants argued that they should be entitled to the benefits flowing from the Rule 56B facility allowed by the Collector.3. Proceedings were initiated to demand duty from the appellants due to their ineligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 235/85. The Tribunal had previously held that this notification did not apply to the appellants. The appellants requested withdrawal of the demand based on the facility granted under Rule 56B to the gas supplier, M/s. CFL. The Collector's order did not consider the context in which the issue was raised and the relief sought by the appellants.4. The learned DR argued that since the clearances were not made under Rule 56B during the relevant period, no relief should be granted to the appellants. The appellants had been excluded from the benefit of Notification No. 235/85 by the Collector's order but CFL was allowed clearances under Rule 56B.5. The Tribunal observed that while the appellants were denied the benefit of Notification No. 235/85, CFL was allowed clearances under Rule 56B. The appellants sought relief based on this order. The Tribunal directed the Lower Authority to issue a speaking order addressing all points raised by the appellants, including the withdrawal of the demand, in light of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the Collector.6. The Tribunal upheld the Lower Authority's order denying the facility claimed by the appellants under Rule 56B. However, the appellants were entitled to a speaking order regarding other points raised by them concerning the demand raised against them. The Lower Authority was directed to consider the finality of the orders passed by both the Tribunal and the Collector while adjudicating on the appellants' request for withdrawal of the demand.