9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 924 - AT - Central ExciseRule 5 of Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 - Held that the Commissioner had held otherwise and being so, considering the decision of the Apex Court, the impugned order in that regard cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the Commissioner for re-determination of the capacity, bearing in mind the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court - Appeal is allowed
Issues: Interpretation of Rule 5 of Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 in case of changes in the installed machinery.
Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case was whether Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 would apply when there are changes in the parameters of the mill. The Tribunal noted that the key question was whether Rule 5 would be triggered if a manufacturer intends to modify the installed machinery and seeks approval from the Commissioner of Excise under Rule 4(2) of the said Rules. 2. The Tribunal referred to a relevant judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. M/s. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills, where it was held that Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules would be applicable for determining the Annual Capacity of Production when any changes in the installed machinery are communicated to the Commissioner of Central Excise under Rule 4(2) of the said Rules. 3. Upon reviewing the impugned order, it was found that the Commissioner had taken a different stance contrary to the Supreme Court's interpretation. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order could not be upheld in light of the Apex Court's decision. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the matter to be remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh determination of the capacity, considering the Supreme Court's ruling. 4. In the final decision, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order that overlooked the clarified legal position established by the Supreme Court. The matter was remanded for a re-evaluation of the capacity and duty liability in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgment, resulting in the appeal succeeding with consequential relief.
|
