AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (2) TMI 315
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tifications, the Appellant filed five separate claims of rebates before the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise for the periods November-December, 1973; January-February 1974; January-February, 1975; March-June, 1975 and July-December, 1975 respectively; (b) out of the aforesaid five claims, the Assistant Collector granted the rebate initially for the periods November-December, 1973 and January-February, 1974; but then he issued notices dated the 12th October, 1975 and 17th October, 1975 requiring the Appellant to show cause why the rebates already granted may not be recovered back, an erroneous payment. For the three remaining claims it would appear the Asstt. Collector had granted rebate partially; (c) <|>the Appellant preferred fiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....practice with the Revisional Authority of entertaining a single Revision against a common order in a plurality of appeals involving identical questions of facts and law and the resulting hardship if we are now to confine the hearing of appeal in one claim for rebate instead of five different claims. Accordingly, the Appellant was permitted to file identical copies of Grounds of Appeal in respect of its other four claims for rebate as well on payment of separate set of fees in regard to them, condoning the delay and they are numbered as Appeal Nos. 45 to 48/77-C. 5. All the appeals have been heard together, and are disposed of by this order. 6. The facts are not in dispute. The Appellant manufactured vegetable products and margar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., no power to review his earlier orders so as to recall the rebates already granted in relation to the periods November-December, 1973 and January-February, 1974. This contention does not appear to have been even adverted to by the Collector Appeals or the Assistant Collector. 8. The Appellant in the course of the arguments relied upon Trade Notice No. 144(MP) V.I.P. (27/74) as well as the proforma account of cotton seed oil used in the manufacture of vegetable products a form prescribed by the Excise authorities. 9. It is unnecessary to decide the competence of the Assistant Collector, in terms of the Statute, to review his earlier order, in the view we propose to adopt on the construction, of the notifications in question. 10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reckoning of the extent of exemption when it is to be in relation to a specified percentage, by weight, of the products in which it had been actually used. 12. In the result all the five appeals are allowed. The order of the Collector Appeals is set aside. The Appellant is declared to be entitled to such consequential relief in relation to all the five claims for rebate, as he may, in the light of this order, by way of rebate in the relevant periods. 13. Incidentally, it would appear that this is not a case where either the rate of duty or value for the purposes of assessment is one of the issues raised. It is the quantum of duty that is in issue, the rate of duty and limit of exemption having been admitted. The notification in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... having a relation to the rate of duty of excise : "The applicability of the notification is not also in dispute seeing that rebate in part was granted as per the computation adopted by the Revenue. The manner and method of computation of the extent of rebate/exemption and consequently the quantum of duty are in issue and not the rate of duty." 14. To begin with, I would like to refer to Section 3 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, as also Rule 8 and Rule 192 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Section 3 provides that there shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed duties of excise on all excisable goods other than salt which are produced or manufactured in India at the rate set forth in the First Schedul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeals against a decision or order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment. 18. In Sub-section 3 of the aforesaid provision jurisdiction is conferred on the President or any other member, so authorised in this behalf by the President, sitting even singly, to hear and decide any disputed case, where the difference in duty or the duty involved does not exceed ten thousand rupees, provided that the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty or value for purposes of assessment is also not in issue. 19. Clauses a & b of sub-section 3 of Section 35D contemplate situations where the p....