2003 (10) TMI 339 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against revision of A.S.P. by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the respondent.
2. Validity of changing A.S.P. for Central Excise duty on aluminium circles.
3. Dispute over payment of duty after reduction in rolling machine size.
4. Interpretation of Rule 96ZA regarding special procedure for duty payment.
5. Delegation of power to Assistant Commissioner for granting special procedure under Rule 96ZA.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal allowing the revision of A.S.P. to the respondent, M/s. Jai Bharat Industries. The Revenue contended that the A.S.P. once fixed cannot be changed until the expiry of the period. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a Tribunal decision in Jupiter Industries v. C.C.E. and allowed the revision. The compounded levy procedure for duty payment was highlighted by the Revenue, emphasizing the need for permission from the Commissioner for any changes in A.S.P.

2. The respondent argued that they informed the Range Superintendent about the reduction in rolling machine size and submitted a revised A.S.P. The Commissioner (Appeals) justified the revision based on the decision in Jupiter Industries, stating that no duty is payable for a machine not in existence. The respondent claimed to have paid the appropriate duty as they used the reduced size roller.

3. The Tribunal analyzed Rule 96ZA, which provides a special procedure for duty payment on excisable goods like aluminium circles. It was noted that the application for special procedure could cover a period less than 12 months. The power to grant special procedure under sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZA was delegated to the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order as the respondents had followed the proper procedure by informing the Range Superintendent and submitting an application for necessary changes after reducing the roller size.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that the rates per machine for duty payment are fixed under Rule 96ZB, and the power to grant special procedure for a period less than 12 months lies with the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's appeal was unfounded, as the respondents had acted in accordance with the rules by seeking approval for changes in A.S.P. due to the reduction in rolling machine size.

5. In summary, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to allow the revision of A.S.P. for the respondent, M/s. Jai Bharat Industries. The Tribunal found that the respondents had followed the proper procedure by informing the authorities and submitting the necessary application for changes in A.S.P. after reducing the size of the rolling machine.