2000 (8) TMI 438 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
- Redetermination of liability to pay Central Excise duty under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act
- Correctness of the capacity of the induction furnace for charging Central Excise duty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules

Analysis:
1. The appeal by M/s. Ganpati Industries questioned the redetermination of duty liability and the capacity of their induction furnace for Central Excise duty. The Appellate Tribunal considered the submissions regarding the capacity of the furnace, the Commissioner's orders, and the request for redetermination. The Advocate emphasized the capacity as per the manufacturer's invoice and the option to pay duty based on actual production under Section 3A(4). The Tribunal's previous remand order was also highlighted.

2. The Advocate referred to the Supreme Court judgment in CCE v. Venus Castings (P) Ltd. to support the argument for redetermination of capacity based on actual production from a specific date. The request for redetermination made by the appellants was emphasized, along with the reliance on a Tribunal decision regarding opting out of Rule 96ZO(3). The Advocate contested the Commissioner's findings on the furnace capacity and the calculation method used.

3. The Departmental Representative argued that once the duty payment option under Rule 96ZO(3) is chosen for a financial year, it cannot be changed midway. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and cited the Supreme Court's decision in Venus Castings case. The conclusion was that the appellants had to pay duty based on the furnace capacity prior to a specific date and could opt for redetermination from that date onwards.

4. Rule 96ZO(3) outlines the payment calculation based on the annual capacity of production, determined by the Commissioner as per the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rule, 1997. The Advocate stressed the importance of the manufacturer's invoice for determining capacity, citing a relevant Tribunal decision. The Tribunal upheld the requirement to pay duty based on the furnace capacity mentioned in the manufacturer's invoice.

5. The Tribunal's final decision disposed of the appeal based on the arguments presented, emphasizing the need for redetermination of capacity from a specific date and the validity of paying duty according to the furnace capacity mentioned in the manufacturer's invoice.