G. Sankaran, President

1. This application has been filed under Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, praying that clarifications as set out therein be issued in relation to the captioned order.

2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of this application are that the applicants, engaged in the manufacture of synthetic organic dyestuffs ("S.O. Dye-stuffs", for short) had been enjoying the benefit of central excise Notification No. 103/61 dated 20-4-1961. The notification exempted S.O. Dyestuffs manufactured wholly or partly out of imported intermediates from the payment of so much of the excise duty leviable thereon as was equivalent to the amount of countervailing customs duty paid on such imported intermediates. This notification was amended on 19-6-1980 by Notification No. 109/80 providing that in relation to the exemption, the procedure set out in Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, be followed. In the meanwhile, Rule 56A had been amended by Notification No. 104/79 dated 3-3-1979 adding the following proviso to sub-rule (2) thereof -

"Provided further that no credit of countervailing duty shall be allowed in respect of any material or component parts used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods, if countervailing duty has been paid in respect of such material, or component parts, as fall under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944)".

Consequent on this amendment, the central excise authorities denied the benefit of Notification No. 103/61 to the applicants in respect of dye intermediates which had paid countervailing duty under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, used in the manufacture of S.O. Dyestuffs. The matter eventually reached this Tribunal by way of an appeal from the present applicants and this was disposed of by the Tribunal by Order No. 616/88-C dated 27-7-1988 reported in MANU/CE/0217/1988 : 1988 (37) ELT 299. The Tribunal held that the specific prohibition over availment of the credit of countervailing duty paid on raw materials etc. under Item No. 68, CET, did not figure in Notification No. 103/61, as amended. In this notification, the extent of exemption to be allowed was not subject to any specific exclusion in regard to the countervailing duty paid on any category of goods. It was an independent notification for a specific category of goods and the extent of exemption allowed thereunder could not in any way be reduced by a prohibition regarding the benefit available under another rule or notification unless so specifically provided for in the notification. The proviso to Notification No. 103/61 related to the procedure to be followed. The procedure provided for the mechanics or manner of availing the exemption and the extent of exemption given could not be reduced or nullified by reading the provision of Rule 56A into it unless it were specifically warranted by the wording of the notification. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

3. In the normal course, the story should have ended there subject, of course, to the right of appeal by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court. But it did not. And we are now witnessing the epilogue, as it were.

4. On receipt of the Tribunal's order in their favour, the applicants approached the Assistant Collector on 1-9-1988 with a claim for the refund due as a result of the order though, in law, they did not have to file a claim for the purpose and it was for the Asst. Collector, on his own, to take action. The Asst. Collector, by an order in the form of a letter dated 7-7-1989, dismissed the claim on the following ground -

"The facility of such credit was available till the amendment to Rule 56-A by issue of a Notification No. 104/79 dated 3-3-1979. You are however aware that the Notification No. 103/61 dated 27-4-1961 has already been rescinded by Notification No. 209/84 dated 16-10-1984.