Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 587 - AT - Central ExciseDetermination of Annual Capacity of production - Hot Rolls - Steel Rolls - Claim of abatement under Rule 5 - Principle of natural justice - Held that - Both sides suggested that this batch of appeals may be disposed with appropriate direction to lower authority to re-determine the liability in accordance with law. - Matter remanded back. Since it is mentioned in the Bar that Rule 5 of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 is under challenge before Hon ble High Court of Madras in the writ application as aforesaid, the authority shall be guided by judgement of the Hon ble High Court if Judgment therein comes while doing re-adjudication. Otherwise his decision shall be subject to outcome thereof. In such event, the authority shall mention in his order that the re-adjudication order is subject to outcome of the writ application above.
Issues:
Remand of appeals for re-determination of liability under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 based on previous judgments and agreement of both parties. Analysis: The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Madras High Court regarding the determinability of liability under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 led to the decision to remand a batch of appeals for re-determination. The counsels highlighted issues such as violation of natural justice, improper determination of Annual Capacity Production (ACP), disallowed abatement, and non-compliance with Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. Both sides agreed not to challenge the leviability of duty under Section 3A, but requested a fair opportunity to present their arguments and evidence before the adjudicating authority. The appeals were remanded with specific directions for the adjudicating authority. These directions included granting a fair opportunity for appellants to present their case based on existing facts and evidence, following the ratios laid down in previous judgments, allowing abatement where permissible, addressing issues of natural justice, determining ACP in accordance with Rule 3, and considering the outcome of the challenge to Rule 5 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The authority was instructed to mention in the order that the re-adjudication is subject to the outcome of the writ application challenging Rule 5. The appellants were urged to cooperate without seeking adjournments, and the authorities were directed to hear the matters afresh, record evidence properly, and pass reasoned orders promptly. Additionally, the issue arising from Rule 3 was noted to have been decided by the apex court, while the constitutional validity of Rule 5 was not addressed. Revenue appeals were also remanded for reconsideration in light of the directions provided. In conclusion, the judgment focused on ensuring a fair and thorough re-determination of liability under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, based on established legal principles and previous court decisions, with a strong emphasis on upholding natural justice and procedural compliance.
|