9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 316 - AT - Central ExciseDetermination of Annual Production capacity - reduced annual production capacity on the basis of reduction of parameters in their mills - Rule 5 of Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 - HELD THAT - On the plain reading of the Rule 5 of Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, it is clear that even if the parameter is changed the APC should be fixed based on the annual production of the year 1996-1997. However, the vires of Rule 5 is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court in M/S. BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. ANOTHER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS 2017 (3) TMI 1357 - SUPREME COURT . Therefore, in the interest of justice, as regard the issue of determination of APC and demand of duty it should be decided only after the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, only for the issue of demand of duty, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority. Demand of interest on the duty liability - HELD THAT - It is found that Hon ble supreme Court in the case of M/S. SHREE BHAGWATI STEEL ROLLING MILLS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ANOTHER 2015 (11) TMI 1172 - SUPREME COURT has clearly held that the levy of interest cannot be made under rule 96ZO, 96ZP, 96ZQ of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1994 which provided for compounded levy scheme itself does not stipulate levy of interest - Interest set aside. Appeal allowed in part..
Issues:
1. Entitlement to reduced annual production capacity based on parameter reduction. 2. Validity of Rule 5 of Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. 3. Demand of duty and interest liability. Analysis: Issue 1: The main issue in this case is whether the appellant is entitled to a reduced annual production capacity based on the reduction of parameters in their mills. The appellant argued that the APC should have been fixed considering the changed parameters as directed by the tribunal in previous rounds of appeal. The consultant for the appellant cited various judgments to support their claim. On the other hand, the revenue representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order. The tribunal carefully considered both submissions and found that the lower authority had solely relied on Rule 5 for the decision. Issue 2: The validity of Rule 5 of the Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 was also a significant issue in this case. The consultant for the appellant pointed out that the vires of Rule 5 were pending before the Honorable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7823/2014. Due to this pending challenge, the tribunal decided that the determination of APC and demand of duty should await the Supreme Court's judgment. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority solely for the issue of demand of duty. Issue 3: Regarding the demand of interest on the duty liability, the tribunal referred to a judgment by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills. The Supreme Court had ruled that the levy of interest cannot be made under certain Central Excise Rules as the Central Excise Act itself does not stipulate the levy of interest under the compounded levy scheme. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the liability of interest and partially allowed the appeal. In conclusion, the tribunal remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for the issue of demand of duty pending the Supreme Court's decision on the validity of Rule 5. The tribunal also set aside the liability of interest based on the Supreme Court's ruling. The judgment was pronounced on 28.4.2021.
|
