9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (5) TMI 544 - AT - Central ExciseDuty demand - Introduction of new scheme of levy and collection of excise duty on steel rolling mills on the basis of their annual production capacity under Section 3A - Commissioner after considering the parameters furnished by the appellant fixed the APC and duty thereof - he appellant working under the APC did not discharge their duty liability as fixed by the Commissioner from time to time and on the fixed dates as prescribed under the Rules and the Notification issued there under during the period September 1997 to March 2000 - Held that - after the omission of Rules 96ZQ, 96ZP and 96ZO of Central Excise Rules, 1944 with effect from 1-3-2001, no proceeding could have been initiated there under and after omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with effect from 11-5-2001 without any saving clause, no pending proceedings under the said rules which had not been concluded before the omission came into effect, could be concluded thereafter - impugned order is not sustainable and has to be set-aside since in this case, the order-in-original was passed on 30-10-2003 i.e. after the Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 was amended - Following decision of KRISHNA PROCESSORS Versus UNION OF INDIA 2012 (11) TMI 954 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
- Applicability of new Section 3A and Rules framed thereunder for levy of excise duty on steel rolling mills. - Failure of the appellant to discharge duty liability as fixed by the Commissioner. - Imposition of penalty under Rule 96ZP(3)(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. - Appeal process leading to the Tribunal's decision and subsequent appeal by Revenue before the High Court. - Interpretation of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Processors & Others regarding the omission of certain rules and sections. Analysis: Issue 1: The case involved the introduction of a new Section 3A and the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Production Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 for levy and collection of excise duty on steel rolling mills based on their annual production capacity. The appellant opted for this scheme, and the duty was fixed by the Commissioner according to the parameters provided by the appellant. Issue 2: The appellant failed to discharge their duty liability as fixed by the Commissioner from September 1997 to March 2000, leading to the issuance of five show cause notices demanding Central Excise duty and invoking penalty provisions under Rule 96ZP(3)(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Issue 3: The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the duty and imposed a penalty, which was challenged by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand but reduced the penalty. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, which was further appealed by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The High Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal without expressing any opinion. Issue 4: The appellant argued that the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Processors & Others established that no proceedings could be initiated under certain rules and sections after their omission. The appellant contended that since the order-in-original was passed after the amendment to Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the impugned order was not sustainable. Conclusion: The Tribunal, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, set aside the impugned order, providing consequential relief to the appellants based on the interpretation of the legal provisions and precedents established by the High Court.
|
