2001 (5) TMI 639 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Determining demands under Rule 3(4) of the Hot Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 read with Notification No. 38/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-8-1997.

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai arose from an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad, regarding the determination of demands under the Hot Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules. The Commissioner had fixed the annual capacity of production and the duty liability for the appellant. The appellant challenged the quantification through a Stay Application, which was considered by the Tribunal. The appellant claimed that the re-determination of production capacity by a team of experts from Chandigarh was not justified as there were no changes in the parameters. The appellant relied on previous judgments to support their argument that determination of annual production capacity cannot be provisional. The Tribunal noted that under Section 3A(4) of the CEA Act, determination of annual production is a final order and not provisional, as stated in previous judgments. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not consider these judgments and remanded the case for de novo consideration, emphasizing the need for a speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

The appellant argued that the re-assessment of production capacity was not justified as the initial determination was provisional. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, reiterated that determination of annual production capacity under the CEA Act is a final order and not provisional. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner did not consider the relevant judgments cited by the appellant, leading to the decision to remand the case for reconsideration. The Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit and directed the original authority to re-examine the matter in light of the cited judgments, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case before a speaking order is issued.