9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 920 - HC - Central ExciseDelayed payment of central excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Demand of Interest and penalty - Rules 96ZO, 96 ZP and 96 ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 - Annual Capacity of Production Scheme - respondent is independent processor of textile fabrics - Held that - In Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2015 (11) TMI 1172 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon ble Supreme Court has declared Rule 96 ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as ultra vires of the Act and therefore, the second substantial question of law, is also answered against the revenue. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of remanding the Order-In-Original for redetermination of duty liability. 2. Correctness of the Tribunal's order regarding the imposition of penalty under Rule 96 ZQ (5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Remanding the Order-In-Original for Redetermination of Duty Liability: The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision to remand the Order-In-Original No.02/2007 dated 26.02.2007 for redetermination of duty liability. The appellant argued that the duty liability had already become final and conclusive as per the Tribunal's final order No.499 to 501/2006 dated 12.06.2006, which upheld the demand of duty raised by the Commissioner. The appellant contended that the Tribunal should have only focused on the penalty aspect and not the duty liability. The Court noted that the Tribunal, in its final order Nos.40241 to 40263 of 2015 dated 24.02.2015, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority based on the consensus between both parties. The Tribunal directed that the adjudicating authority should provide a fair opportunity of hearing, follow the ratio laid down in relevant judgments, allow abatement where permissible, and ensure compliance with natural justice principles. The Court observed that the Tribunal's decision to remand was influenced by the parties' agreement and the need for proper determination of liability in accordance with law. The Court also referenced the Hon'ble Division Bench's decision in W.A.Nos.1620 & 1675 of 2003, which dismissed the writ appeals challenging Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. Given the consensus and the legal precedents, the Court found no merit in the appellant's contention and answered the first substantial question of law against the revenue. 2. Correctness of the Tribunal's Order Regarding the Imposition of Penalty: The appellant argued that the Tribunal should have directly addressed the issue of penalty under Rule 96 ZQ (5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, instead of remanding the matter. The appellant highlighted that Rule 96 ZQ (5)(ii) mandates an equal penalty to the amount of duty outstanding, and the adjudicating authority had already calculated the penalty accordingly. The Court referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2015 (326) ELT 209 (SC), which declared Rule 96 ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as ultra vires of the Act. Consequently, the Court found that the second substantial question of law was also answered against the revenue. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, finding no grounds for interference with the Tribunal's decision. The Court upheld the Tribunal's remand for redetermination of duty liability and noted the ultra vires status of Rule 96 ZQ(5)(ii) concerning penalty imposition. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
|
