MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, ANIL R.DAVE
Hans Steel Rolling Mill – Appellant
Versus
Commnr. of Central Excise, Chandigarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. —
1. The issue that falls for consideration in these appeals is, as to whether the provisions of time limit that are contained in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short ‘the Act’) are applicable to the recovery of amounts due under the compound levy scheme for Hot-Re-rolling mills, under the Annual Capacity determination Rules 1997 because otherwise, it is a separate scheme for the collection of Central Excise Duty for the goods manufactured in the country.
2. In order to record a definite finding on the aforesaid issue it would be necessary to set out certain facts leading to filing of the present appeals.
3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72 and 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period ranging from 01.09.1997 to 31.3.2000, the goods manufactured by the appellants were chargeable to Central Excise Duty in terms of Section 3A of the Act. As per the Act, the duty was suppose to be paid on the annual production capacity of the plant, irrespective of the actual production. Under the scheme of Section 3A, the payment of duty to be under Rule 96ZP of the
Commissioner of C. EX & Customs v. Venus Castings (P) Ltd as reported in 2000 (117) ELT 273 (SC)
Union of India v. Supreme Steels and General Mills as reported in 2001 (133) ELT 513 (SC)
Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur V. Raghuvar (India) Ltd as reported in 2000 (118) ELT 311 (SC)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.