9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; In the facts and circumstances of the case, could the Tribunal have held that the decision taken by the Commissioner fixing the Annual Production Capacity and conveyed by the Assistant Commissioner was not sufficient compliance of relevant provisions regarding fixation of Annual Production Capacity and merely on ground of a procedural lapse, if presumed to be there, absolve the assessee from the payment of legitimate duty liability, which had arisen in terms of APC fixed by the Commissioner, Central Excise as per parameters declared by the assessee-appellant? (b) Whether the decision in the case of M/s Bhuvalka Steel Industries Ltd. reported in 2005 (185) E.L.T. 73 (T) lays down correct law? (c) &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e confirmed along with penalty and interest. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 25-5-2005 modified the Order-in-Original to the extent of reducing the penalty to Rs. 5,00,000/-. 4. Against the said order the assessee went in appeal to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the assessee reliance was placed upon a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai, 2005 (185) E.L.T. 73 (Tri-Chennai), in support of the contention that the APC fixed by the Commissioner and communicated by the Assistant Commissioner cannot be made the basis of demand of duty. The Tribunal, placing reliance on the said decision, set aside the order mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the manufacturer. Any letter sent by any subordinate officer intimating to the party an ACP claimed to have been determined by the Commissioner would not serve the requirement of law, nor would such a letter be a legally valid basis for demand of duty. The Tribunal thereafter set aside the Assistant Commissioner's proceedings and directed the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise to determine the ACP for the relevant period in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice with a further direction to intimate the same to the party. The Tribunal further directed that the jurisdictional Commissioner shall also quantify the demand of duty after taking into account the payments already made by the party and set aside Order- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e afresh. 10. On behalf of the assessee, Mr. D.K. Trivedi learned Advocate has submitted that the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Production Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 under which the annual production capacity had been determined having since been repealed, the Commissioner would no longer have the power to determine the annual production capacity and as such there is no warrant for interference by this Court. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India, 2000 (119) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.). Since the impugned order of the Tribunal is based only on its earlier decision, the contention raised by the learned advocate for the assessee does not merit acceptan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
