2010 (7) TMI 586 - AT - Central Excise

Compounded rates - Annual production capacity - Annual production capacity is lower than the base year annual production capacity - The dispute is, whether the reduced capacity of production should be adopted or the base year production capacity should be deemed to be the capacity for this period - The order of the Larger Bench is to the effect that when there is no change in parameters during a particular period and the determination of production is lower than the base years production, then the base years annual production is the deemed production of the current year. The Rule 4 clearly envisages that when there are changes in parameters, the Revised production capacity should be given effect to. Rule 5 prescribing deemed production capacity for a period has no reference to re-determining annual production capacity as per Rule 4. The Rules envisages intimation by the manufacturer about proposed changes of parameters by giving notice of 30 days and seeking permission for such changes - The appellants have intimated the closure of factory and after completing the change of parameters informed the department - Therefore, there is no justification for not giving the benefit of re-determined annual production capacity.

Summary

Issues:
- Capacity determination based on changes in parameters and annual production capacity
- Applicability of Larger Bench decision on base year production capacity
- Requirement of permission for modification of parameters
- Dispute regarding deemed production capacity for the relevant period

Analysis:
1. Capacity Determination based on Changes in Parameters and Annual Production Capacity:
The case involved the manufacturer of hot rerolled products appealing against the Commissioner's order determining the annual capacity of production. The Commissioner had re-determined the capacity after changes in parameters, leading to a dispute over the deemed production capacity for the relevant period.

2. Applicability of Larger Bench Decision on Base Year Production Capacity:
The appellant relied on a decision of the Larger Bench in a similar case to argue that when there is a change in parameters, the base year's production capacity should not be deemed relevant. The Tribunal considered this argument in light of the facts of the case.

3. Requirement of Permission for Modification of Parameters:
The Commissioner held that the appellants did not seek permission for modifying the parameters, despite intimating about the shutdown and completion of modifications. This raised a question regarding compliance with the rules requiring manufacturers to inform and seek permission for such changes.

4. Dispute Regarding Deemed Production Capacity for the Relevant Period:
The main dispute centered around whether the reduced capacity of production post-parameter changes should be adopted or if the base year's production capacity should be deemed the capacity for the period. The Tribunal analyzed the rules and the facts to resolve this issue.

The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both sides and the records. It noted that the facts related to changes in parameters and the subsequent notifications were not in dispute. The Tribunal interpreted the rules to conclude that when there are changes in parameters, the revised production capacity should be given effect to. It emphasized that the rules require manufacturers to notify and seek permission for modifications to prevent malpractice.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing that the duty liability for the relevant period should be based on the re-determined annual capacity of production, which was 880.5 MT/annum. The decision aimed to ensure compliance with the rules and prevent any unjust outcomes based on the capacity determination process.