2001 (11) TMI 100 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance.
2. Interpretation of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Clarification on the inclusion of "galleries" in determining the annual capacity of production.
4. Compliance with judicial discipline and adherence to appellate orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Impugned Circular:
The petitioners challenged the circular dated 27-2-1999 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, claiming it was contrary to the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the relevant notifications. The petitioners argued that the circular's clarification compelled assessing authorities to consider the gallery portion, which does not aid in the process of heat setting or drying of fabrics, for determining the duty.

2. Interpretation of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
Section 3A, introduced by Act 26 of 1997, allows the Central Government to charge excise duty based on the capacity of production for notified goods. Notifications Nos. 41/98-C.E. (N.T.) to 44/98-C.E. (N.T.) and 36/98-C.E. were issued under this provision, specifying duty rates and defining "independent processors" and the method for determining annual production capacity based on the number of chambers in a Hot Air Stenter.

3. Clarification on the Inclusion of "Galleries":
The petitioners contended that the clarification was incorrect in including galleries for determining production capacity, as galleries do not aid in heat setting or drying. The clarification stated that galleries, providing heat insulation, should be considered for computing production capacity. However, the CEGAT, Northern Bench, in Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Jaipur, held that galleries without rails, fans, or radiators do not qualify as "other equipment" under Explanation I to Rule 3 of the 1998 Rules.

4. Compliance with Judicial Discipline and Adherence to Appellate Orders:
The court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., which mandates that revenue officers must follow appellate orders. Despite the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Coimbatore, indicating non-acceptance of the CEGAT order due to a contemplated appeal, the court held that pending appeals do not justify ignoring binding appellate decisions unless stayed by a competent authority.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the impugned circular need not be set aside, as the CEGAT order must be followed over the circular while determining excise duty under Section 3A. The authorities must consider whether the equipment in the gallery aids in heat setting or drying on a case-by-case basis. The writ petitions were disposed of with these observations, emphasizing adherence to judicial discipline and appellate orders.