S.P. Bharucha, J.
1. The respondents manufactured rigid PVC pipes which fell under Tariff Item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. The said goods were exempted from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon until 27th February, 1982. On 28th February, 1982, by reason of a Notification which, we have ascertained, was issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules (being Notification No. 52/82-C.E.) the effective rate of duty on the said goods became 8 per cent, ad valorem. On 22nd April, 1982, another Notification issued under the same provisions again wholly exempted the said goods from payment of excise duty.
2. The respondents filed a claim for refund of the duty paid on the said goods cleared by them between 28th February, 1982, and 21st April, 1982. It was contended that these goods had been manufactured before 28th February, 1982, when they were fully exempt from payment of duty, and, hence, no duty was payable on them, although they had been cleared after 28th February, 1982. The claim having been rejected by the authorities below, the respondents filed an appeal before the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. It was contended that the said Notification dated 28th February, 1982., (No. 58/82-C.E.) had been issued under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931; that this Notification had been withdrawn when Notification dated 21st April, 1982, restoring total exemption was issued and the Finance Act passed; and, therefore, the duty paid at the rate of 8 per cent, ad valorem as aforestated was refundable. The Tribunal found the case covered by its earlier order in the case of Jindal Paper and Plastic Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. Following that order, it held that no duty had been payable on the said goods for the relevant period and, hence, the respondents' refund claim was admissible.
3. Learned Counsel for the Revenue, in. this appeal against the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, has drawn attention to the fact that the Revenue's appeal to this Court in the case of M/s. Jindal Paper and Plastic Ltd. above referred to has been allowed (by the Order dated 26th August, 1986, in Civil Appeal Nos. 4572-73 of 1989), following the decision in Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. : 1996(83)ELT3(SC) . Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the aforesaid judgments were distinguishable because the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, applied and that, since the Finance Act had not been passed levying duty on the said goods at the rate of 8 per cent, ad valorem, the duty collected for the period during which the Finance Bill was pending was refundable.
4. Section 4 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, states that a declared provision shall have the force of law immediately on the expiry of the day on which the Bill containing it is introduced. It also states, as learned Counsel for the respondents emphasised that a declared provision shall cease to have the force of law under the provisions of the Act on the expiry of the 75th day after the day on which the Bill containing it is introduced. Where a declared provision ceases to have the force of law, collections made on the basis thereof have to be refunded under the provisions of Section 5.
5. As we have pointed out, the goods were at all relevant times excisable. For the period prior to 27th February, 1982, the rate of duty thereon was nil. Thereafter, until 21st April, 1982, the effective rate of duty as 8 per cent, ad valorem and after 21st April, 1982, the rate of duty was again nil. During the period 28th February, 1982 to 21st April, 1982, the rate of duty was 8 per cent, ad valorem by reason of an exemption Notification issued under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules. The decision in Vazir Sultan's case squarely applies, as was observed by this Court when it allowed the appeal of the Revenue in the similar case of M/s. Jindal Paper and Plastic Limited. The provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, have no application.
6. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside. The refund application made by the respondents is rejected. No order as to costs.