2000 (7) TMI 325 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against duty liability determination based on actual production.
2. Application for re-determination of duty based on actual production.
3. Interpretation of Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act.
4. Conflict between Rule 96ZP(3) and Section 3A(4) procedures.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, M/s. Kishan Chand Steel Re-Rolling Mills, appealed against the duty liability determination based on actual production, as communicated by the Superintendent Central Excise. The appellant argued that their unit's annual production capacity was provisionally determined by the Commissioner in 1997 and they sought re-determination based on actual production figures submitted in 1999. The appellant contended that the duty liability should be based on actual production, not the provisional capacity.

2. The appellant's advocate submitted that they manufacture M.S. Rounds and Bars under the Compounded Levy Scheme of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. They referenced a Supreme Court interim order from 1998 and submitted actual production figures from September 1997 to March 1999. However, the Commissioner rejected their application for re-determination, leading to this appeal.

3. The respondent, represented by Shri M.P. Singh, argued against re-determination based on actual production, citing a Supreme Court judgment in the case of CCE v. Venus Castings Pvt. Ltd. The Supreme Court ruling emphasized that once an assessee opts for duty payment under Rule 96ZP(3), the determination of annual production capacity under Section 3A(4) is excluded. Therefore, the appellant cannot claim re-determination based on actual production.

4. The Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions and the Supreme Court's precedent, concluded that the appellant's choice to pay duty under Rule 96ZP(3) precludes them from seeking re-determination based on actual production under Section 3A(4). The Tribunal highlighted that the procedures under Rule 96ZP(3) and Section 3A(4) are alternative and cannot be combined. As the appellant did not challenge the initial duty liability parameters set by the Commissioner, the appeal was rejected in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Venus Castings Pvt. Ltd.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, legal interpretations, and the ultimate decision made by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi in this case.