2005 (3) TMI 321 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against demand of duty under Compounded Levy Scheme.
2. Challenge to determination of Annual Capacity of Production (ACP).
3. Condonation of delay in appeal and re-determination of ACP.
4. Finality and binding nature of Commissioner's ACP order on demand of duty.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against a demand of duty of Rs. 24,606 under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The appellants were required to discharge duty liability based on the Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The ACP was determined at 984.229 MT effective from a specific date. The appellants challenged the Commissioner's ACP order in a delayed appeal, which was dismissed. Consequently, the Commissioner's ACP order became final and binding on the party, leading to the present appeal.

2. The appellants argued that the Tribunal could direct the Commissioner to re-determine the ACP in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice, as the original determination did not consider a revised declaration filed by the appellants. However, the Tribunal accepted the Departmental Representative's submission that the demand of duty was directly linked to the final ACP determined by the Commissioner. Since the ACP was binding on the assessee, any challenge to the demand based on this ACP was deemed unsustainable.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that the final and binding nature of the Commissioner's ACP order extended to the consequential demand of duty. As the demand was a direct result of the ACP determination, any challenge against the demand was considered unsustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal against the demand of duty.

This judgment highlights the significance of the finality and binding nature of orders related to the determination of Annual Capacity of Production under the Compounded Levy Scheme. It underscores the importance of complying with such determinations and the limitations on challenging consequential demands based on these determinations once they become final and binding.