IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.2 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.12-14/MP/Commr(Adjn)2006 dated31.01.2006 passed by Commissioner(Adjudication), Central Excise, Ranchi.)

M/s.Vikromatic Steels Pvt.Ltd.

(Mahesmara, Baijnathpur, B. Deogarh-814112, Jharkhand.)

…Appellant VERSUS Commissioner, CGST & CX, Ranchi Commissionerate …..Respondent (6^th Floor, C.R. Building, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001.)

APPEARANCE Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Senior Advocate & Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate for the Appellant (s)

Shri S.K.Singh, Authorized Representative for the Revenue CORAM:HON’BLE SHRI R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV TANDON, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 77051/2025 DATE OF HEARING :13.06.2025 DATE OF DECISION :13.06.2025 Per :R. MURALIDHAR The appellant, is a manufacturer of M. S. Ingots. They also had a Rolling Mill in the same premises, at Jharkhand. After coming into effect of Section 3A, the Commissioner, Central Excise, Jamshedpur, on March 25, 1998, provisionally determined the annual capacity of production of the Induction Furnace, under the provision of Rule 3 of the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 at 9600 MT. Thereafter, on May 28, 1998 the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise issued a show cause notice mentioning therein that the annual capacity had been fixed at 9600 MT and thus the liability of the appellant from September, 1997 to March, 1998 was allegedly Rs. 42,00,000/- which had to be paid on or before March 31, 1998 but the assessee had paid only Rs. 14,54,996/- and thus paid less by Rs. 27,45,204/-. The appellant was asked to show cause as to why the said duty of Rs. 27,45,204/- together with interest @ 18% be not realized from the appellant. The appellant filed a reply dated June 21, 1998 to the said notice dated May 28, 1998 drawing the attention of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to the fact that Central Excise duty was being paid by the appellant @Rs. 750/- per MT under Rule 96ZO(1) of the said Rules “under protest”. It was stated that the liability of paying duty under Section 3A of the Act was sub-judice before Hon‟ble Supreme Court and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had directed to file application on the basis of actual production by assessees which had to be considered by the Department and until then no coercive action was to be taken by the Department. A copy of the said letter dated 21.06.1998 was also filed.No further proceeding was continued thereafter by the Department on this show cause notice.

2. The appellant, thereafter, by a letter dated March 13, 1999 represented to the Commissioner against the arbitrary fixation of Annual Production Capacity, ignoring the actual production figures. There was no response to the said representation. On June 14, 1999 another show cause notice bearing No. V(72)(15)16/99/3506 was issued to the appellant by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Dhanbad, alleging that the annual production capacity of the induction furnace had been fixed at 9600 MT and in terms thereof the appellant was required to pay duty of Rs. 72,00,000/- annually but they had paid only Rs. 24,38,381/- for the period 1998-99 (until March 31, 1999) and thus, had to be pay outstanding amount of Rs. 47,61,919/-. The appellant was called upon to show cause to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur as to why the said alleged outstanding amount should not be realized from it along with 18% interest. The appellant filed its reply dated July 15, 1999 to the said show cause notice before the Commissioner Central Excise. A personal hearing by the Commissioner was held thereafter. Thereafter, on November 7, 2000, another show cause notice bearing No. V(72)(15)35/2000/6272 was issued to the appellant by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner wherein on the basis of similar allegations as made in the first show cause notice, the appel