TMI Blog1986 (2) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, we will deal with it as an appeal filed to this Tribunal, which is how Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act requires such things to be done. This application/petition/appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal we have recorded above, because the Appellate Collector sent the case back to the Assistant Collector for de novo trial. 2. This case started when two refund claims, one for Rs. 76,459.74 and another for Rs. 21,941.01 were presented to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ludhiana by the factory M/s. Ch. Dewan Chand Dhanpat Rai Bhatia Steel Rolling Mills. They were rejected by the Assistant Collector in two orders, one dated 18-6-1974 and another dated 26-6-1974. When the manufacturers appealed these decisions, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, by order No. 1264-CE/75, dated 2-12-1975 set aside the Assistant Collector s orders and ordered consequential relief to the appellant. The Assistant Collector in order dated 25-5-1977 paid a sum of Rs. 18,971.52 out of Rs. 76,459.74 claimed, and by another order dated 17-6-1977 paid a sum of Rs. 5,614.26 out of the claim of Rs. 21,941.01, because he held that the claims on the rejected part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llector, because when he rejected the remaining amounts, he did so on the grounds that the goods were flats to which the provisions of Notification No. 206/63-C.E. did not apply. It is not correct, therefore, to say that these orders were in defiance of the Appellate Collector s order dated 2-12-1975. Consequential relief does not mean bestowal of all that is asked; it requires that relief should be given but only in accordance with the directions, guidelines and standards provided by the ordering authority. 5. These were to be found in the order of the Appellate Collector dated 29-11-1975. He ruled that semis manufactured out of small ingots which resembled the shape of items mentioned in sub-item (1) of Central Excise Item No. 26AA of Central Excise Tariff were eligible to exemption. On this, he ordered consequential relief. We can see from this that the Appellate Collector did not simply order refund of whatever was claimed by the assessee; he laid down a method by which the Assistant Collector would arrive at conclusions about what goods were eligible to exemption. All this care would be unnecessary if he wanted all the moneys claimed to be refunded, for that he could simply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r were short to the point of being unintelligible; and since they involved rejection of parts of the claims, it was necessary to have orders which would explain the reasons therefore; the only way to that end was a fresh adjudication. The circumstances, that gave rise to partial acceptance of the claim by the Assistant Collector had not been narrated and so there is not much that can be said against the Appellate Collector s order, if one wanted all the truth to come out. Much of the present strife is due to the mistaken belief that the Appellate Collector s order of 1975 was an unqualified cession of the factory s claim; it was not; it was a direction to allow exemption to semis which resemble the shape of items mentioned in sub-item (i) of Item 26AA; an acknowledgement that these were goods not qualified for exemption. The relief to be given was consequential to the ruling, not more and not less. It meant for example that semis which did not resemble the shape of items in sub-item (i) were not to gain concession. The Assistant Collector, to be sure, should have taken steps to enquire and investigate and then announce his findings when he rejected part of the claims. His failure t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly consequential relief. She also said that the Appellate Collector s decision should have been reviewed; no objection can be taken to this; all we know, however, is that it was not, and there s end to it as far as this Tribunal is concerned. 12. There is a decision of the High Court of Madras in 1981 (8) E.L.T. 194 (Madras) Re: Madras Fertilisers Ltd. where the court held that revisionary order cannot be reopened by the Assistant Collector. An order had been passed by the Government of India countermanding an order of the lower authorities which denied the benefit of exemption on fertilisers. The Government said that the notification only required the mixture of fertilisers be obtained with the aid of power and the mixed fertilisers should contain not more than one nutrient. It allowed the exemption under the notification if the conditions thereof were fulfilled. The Assistant Collector, however, laid down certain conditions before giving effect to this revisionary order. The court said that it was not permissible to do so and it set aside the order of the Assistant Collector which made those new conditions and which formed the subject of the writ petition before the High Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck it as illegal, irregular and contrary to natural justice and as a review of his predecessor s order. But for reasons that have been elaborated in the preceding paragraphs, these applications or appeals deserve to be rejected, and so they are rejected. Dated 14-2-1986 Sd/- (M. Santhanam) Member Sd/- (H.R. Syiem) Member 17. [Order per : M. Santhanam, Member (J)]. - While I agree with my learned brother that the Review application is liable to be rejected, I have to add that the Appellate Collector in his order dated 29-11-1975 has laid down the basis on which the refund claim had to be disposed. It cannot be said that as a result of the order passed in the appeal aforesaid an ascertained sum of refund became due to the appellants. The Appellate Collector has adverted to the Judgment of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court which in turn has expressed its opinion on the Notification at issue. In this case the words Consequential relief is allowed postulates further enquiry by the Assistant Collector to accord relief in terms of the observations contained in that order. This the Assistant Collector has proceeded to do, but erred in not issuing any s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
