1999 (8) TMI 89 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
The judgment deals with the challenge to Rule 96ZO(3) introduced by the Central Excise 6th Amendment Rules, seeking allowance for power cuts imposed by APSEB and the validity of sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO.

Rule 96ZO and 96ZP:
Rule 96ZO and 96ZP give effect to Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, charging excise duty on notified goods based on annual production capacity. Sub-section 3A allows duty abatement for non-production periods, and sub-section 4 permits duty re-determination based on actual production.

Validity of Rule 96ZO(3):
The petitioners opted for the compounded levy under Rule 96ZO(3) voluntarily. The rule provides a lumpsum duty payment option, excluding benefits under other provisions. The court held that once an assessee chooses this scheme, they cannot selectively claim advantages from other rules.

Power Cuts and Duty Liability:
The petitioners claimed excise duty remission due to power cuts affecting furnace capacity. However, the court emphasized that the lumpsum duty under Rule 96ZO(3) is optional, and the petitioners cannot challenge it after opting for it knowingly.

Abatement and Relief Provisions:
The court rejected the argument to import abatement provisions from Section 3A into Rule 96ZO(3). Referring to a previous case, the court upheld that relief must be sought within the framework of the rule, not through external provisions.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the writ petitions challenging Rule 96ZO(3) and upheld the validity of the rule. The judgment emphasizes that once an assessee voluntarily chooses a specific duty payment scheme, they are bound by its conditions and cannot seek benefits from other provisions.