K.S. Dilipsinhji, Member (T)

1. M/s. Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited filed a revision application dated 12-9-1978 under old Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and this has been transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 35-P and is to be treated as an appeal before us. The appellants pray for setting aside the demand for Rs. 7,92,405.77 raised by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Goa, for availing of proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The learned Advocate for the appellants stated that the appellants were manufacturing fertilisers under the brand name 'Sampurna' in which they were using imported Muriate of Potash as raw material. The import of Muriate of Potash was canalised through M/s. Indian Potash Limited, and they were selling the same to all consumers including the appellants at the pooled price. The pooled price did not give particulars of the countervailing duty paid by M/s. Indian Potash Limited on Muriate of Potash. Towards the end of 1975-76 the appellants received the consignment of Muriate of Potash from M/s. I.P.L. and M/s. I.P.L. in turn issued a certificate dated 1-3-1976 showing the quantity sold by the latter to the appellants and the amount of countervailing duty involved on, the same and the particulars of duty paid by the I.P.L. to the customs authorities. Accordingly the appellants requested in their letter dated 18-3-1976 to the Collector of Central Excise, Panaji, for availing of proforma credit of countervailing duty paid on the Muriate of Potash for paying the Central Excise duty on fertilisers manufactured by them under Rule 56A. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise in his letter dated 21-7-1976 accorded the permission for availing of the benefit under. Rule 56A of duty on the Muriate of Potash received by the appellants from 5-7-1976 onwards. Thereafter, another letter was issued by the Assistant Collector dated 28-10-1976 permitting the appellants to take credit in RG-23 Part I of the amount of Rs.13,80,000.55 by way of countervailing duty paid on 9937.531 metric tonnes of Muriate of Potash received upto 17-4-1976. The details of the quantity of Muriate of Potash used in the manufacture of fertilisers and the amount of proforma credit were also mentioned in this letter. The Advocate reiterated the contentions advanced in para 5(f) of the revision petition that the period between the date of application by the appellants and the date of Assistant Collector's letter dated 28-10-1976 was used by the Assistant Collector to scrutinise all the records to confirm that the amount and details were all correct. Thereafter, the appellants received another letter dated 22-3-1977 from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise referring to his earlier letter dated 28-10-1976 and informing the appellants that as their application for the grant of proforma credit under Rule 56A was dated 18-3-1976, the appellants were eligible to this benefit from 'this date only and that the benefit given by the Assistant Collector on the quantity of Muriate of Potash involving Rs. 7,92,405.77 prior to 18-3-1976 was not correct, and therefore, the appellants were asked to debit from their P.L.A. or RG-23 Part II the amount of Rs. 7,92,405.77 which was wrongly availed of as credit by the appellants. The Advocate referred to the appellants' letter dated 30-3-1977 addressed to the Assistant Collector requesting for withdrawal of the aforesaid direction. The appellants wrote another letter dated 8-2-1977 to the Assistant Collector which explained how the appellants could not make an application to the Central Excise Authorities earlier for not availing of this benefit and how the CERA team noticed the present anamoly. The Advocate stated that the appellants could apply only after the certificate dated 1-3-1976 had been received from M/s. Indian Potash Limited. He argued that before withdrawing the benefit to the extent of Rs. 7,92,405.77 under his letter dated 22-3