TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (3) TMI 200
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 23-2-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta upholding the orders-in-original dated 24-8-1989 and 25-8-1989 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise insofar as rejection of their claim for higher notional credit of special excise duty under Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules, was concerned. The Collector (Appeals) had, however, allowed their appeals insofar as the penalty imposed on them was concerned. 3. The appeals were argued by Shri D.R. Kohli, learned Consultant. He submitted that the issue for decision was whether the higher notional credit was admissible in terms of Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules in respect of special excise duty. Both Rules 57A and 57B, he pointed out use the ter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in page T-111 of 1990 (49) E.L.T. Shri Kohli also pointed out that the Collector (Appeals) had given no reasons for his decisions. Such a non-speaking order goes against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1976 SC 1785. He also cited their judgment in Orient Paper Mills v. Union of India, reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 345). 4. The arguments were strongly opposed by the learned Departmental Representative Shri B.B. Sarkar appearing on behalf of the respondent Collector. He contended that what is eligible for the grant of higher notional credit in terms of Rule 57B is the basic excise duty and not the special excise duty. He submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y imposed by the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector has given detailed reasons for non-availability of higher notional credit in so far as special excise duty is concerned. While upholding this part of the order and setting aside the penalty, the Collector (Appeals) has shown proper application of mind and decided the matter correctly. His order cannot be called into question as non-speaking one. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, I find that the availment of higher quantum of the specified duty in excess of the actual amount paid on the inputs cleared by small scale industries is regulated in terms of Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986, as subsequently amended. This R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....F. No. 345/9/88 TRU dated 18-3-1988 referred to by Shri Kohli, no doubt, did say that the combined effect of Rule 57B, Notification 177/86 and 175/86 was that the last mentioned Notification provided for grant of notional credit in respect of special excise duty also. This, however, has been superseded by a subsequent clarification after the amendment of Notification 175/86 with effect from 31-3-1988. The earlier clarification does not represent the correct legal position as has been made clear in my foregoing analysis. The Assistant Collector has pointed out in his order that while the appellants have referred to the above-cited instruction, they had avoided reference to the subsequent instructions of the Government indicating a contrary p....