1999 (1) TMI 180 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Determination of annual capacity of production under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Conflict between Rule 96ZO(3) and Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Compliance with judicial directions and principles of judicial discipline.
4. Validity of the Commissioner's order in light of Tribunal's directions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Annual Capacity of Production:

The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots of non-alloy steel, challenged the determination of their annual capacity of production under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal had earlier remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, directing the Commissioner to consider actual production figures and provide an opportunity for the appellants to be heard. The Commissioner, however, noted that no actual production figures were supplied by the appellants and that they had opted for payment of duty under Rule 96ZO(3), which precludes the benefit under Section 3A(4).

2. Conflict Between Rule 96ZO(3) and Section 3A(4):

The appellants argued that Rule 96ZO(3) cannot override Section 3A(4) of the Act. They cited several judicial precedents to support the contention that a rule, being subordinate legislation, cannot curtail the provisions of the main section. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the right granted under Section 3A(4) cannot be taken away by Rule 96ZO(3). The Tribunal emphasized that in cases of conflict between a section and a rule, the section prevails.

3. Compliance with Judicial Directions and Principles of Judicial Discipline:

The appellants contended that the Commissioner failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions, which mandated consideration of actual production figures. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's action of bypassing the Tribunal's directions and proceeding based on Rule 96ZO(3) was against the principles of judicial discipline. The Tribunal reiterated that orders of higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by subordinate authorities unless suspended by a competent court.

4. Validity of the Commissioner's Order:

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's order was not sustainable as it defied the Tribunal's clear directions to consider actual production figures under Section 3A(4). The Tribunal stated that if the Commissioner believed the Tribunal's order was not in accordance with the law, the appropriate course was to appeal to a higher forum, not to bypass the order. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Commissioner's reliance on Rule 96ZO(3) was misplaced as it conflicted with the statutory right provided under Section 3A(4).

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's order was invalid for not following the Tribunal's directions and for incorrectly applying Rule 96ZO(3) over Section 3A(4). The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner to determine the actual production and re-determine the duty payable by the appellants as per Section 3A(4), ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice and judicial discipline.