Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1999 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1999 (7) TMI 134 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Redetermination of duty liability under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act for the period 1-9-1997 to 31-3-1998. 2. Applicability of compounded levy system under Rule 96ZP(3) in relation to redetermination of duty liability. 3. Scope of Tribunal's judgment in the case of Minakshi Castings and Inder Steels P. Ltd. in determining duty liability. Analysis: Issue 1: Redetermination of duty liability under Section 3A(4) The appellants, manufacturers of re-rolled iron and steel products, opted to pay compounded levy under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, starting from 1-9-1997. At the end of the financial year 1997-98, they sought redetermination of duty liability under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act based on actual production during the period. The adjudicating authority rejected their application, citing their choice of the compounded levy system as a reason for ineligibility. The Tribunal, referencing past judgments, held that the appellants were entitled to redetermination under Section 3A(4) for the specified period and directed the Commissioner to reassess the duty liability accordingly. Issue 2: Applicability of compounded levy system under Rule 96ZP(3) The contention arose regarding whether opting for the compounded levy system precluded the appellants from seeking redetermination of duty liability under Section 3A(4). The learned Advocate argued that the denial based on this ground was unsustainable, citing precedents such as the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Minakshi Castings and Inder Steels P. Ltd. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, emphasizing that the choice of compounded levy did not bar them from requesting redetermination under Section 3A(4) for the relevant period. Issue 3: Scope of Tribunal's judgment in Minakshi Castings and Inder Steels P. Ltd. Both parties referred to the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Minakshi Castings and its relevance to the present matter. The learned JDR did not oppose the appellants' plea, acknowledging the applicability of the said judgment. The Tribunal concurred with the submissions, highlighting that the subject matter of the appeal pertained to the specific period in question and was covered by the precedent set in the case of Minakshi Castings. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the duty liability was directed to be redetermined in accordance with Section 3A(4) for the period specified. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the limited scope of the appeal period and the applicability of the Tribunal's previous judgment in similar cases. The decision underscored the appellants' right to seek redetermination of duty liability under Section 3A(4) despite their earlier choice of the compounded levy system.
|