1. The case was heard on 8-3-1983.

2. Shri Raghavan Iyer raised a preliminary objection saying that the Assistant Collector had not passed speaking orders in this case. The appellants, however, stated that they had no grievance on this score and that they wanted the matter to be disposed of by this Bench on merits and not remanded to the Assistant Collector,

3. Exemption notification No. 198/76-CE granted a partial duty concession to the appellants which was in the nature of an incentive for their excess production. The short point to be decided in the present appeal is whether from the appellants' cum-duty prices the duty actually paid by them should be deducted to arrive at the assessable value of their products or the duty which they would have paid but for the incentive concession should be deducted. The question is not whether the appellants should retain the entire incentive with them or pass it on to their customers. That is a matter to be decided entirely by themselves. The question is one only of determining the amount of duty to be deducted from their gross price for arriving at the assessable value. It was brought to the notice of the appellants that Section 47 of the Finance Act, 1982 had inserted an Explanation in Section 4 of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944, with retrospective effect from 1-10-75, which made it clear beyond doubt that duty to be deducted from cum-duty price was the actual effective duty after taking into account any exemption available to the goods. The appellants were asked whether, in view of this amendment to Section 4, they would like to withdraw their present appeal. The appellants stated that they desired to pursue their appeal since they wanted to challenge the vires of the retrospective amendment of 1982.

4. We have carefully considered the matter. It is beyond the powers of this Tribunal to go into the vires of any provision of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944, as this Tribunal itself is a creature of that Act. We can only interpret the law as it is. Since the amendment of 1982 has made it clear beyond doubt that only the effective duty actually paid by the appellants, after taking into account the exemption available under notification No. 198/76-CE , was deductible from their cum-duty price to arrive at the assessable value of their goods, the present appeal has to fail and it is rejected accordingly.