- (1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is aggrieved by the omission of the respondent No. 1 to dispose of the petitioner's application under Section 3A (4) of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and demand of duty without such disposal.
(2.) We have heard Shri Pankaj Bhatia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chandra Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(3.) The petitioner is running a mill manufacturing hot re-rolled non-alloy steel and produces goods that are subject to excise duty. Section 3A of the Act empowers the Central Government to charge excise duty on the basis of capacity of production and such capacity was determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise under Sub-section (2) of Section 3A of the Act. The petitioner has moved an application under Sub-section (4) of Section 3A claiming that the actual production in its factory is lower than the production determined under Sub-section (2). Sub-section (4) requires the Commissioner to determine the actual production after giving an opportunity to the assessee in support of his claim and re-determine the amount of duty payable with reference to such actual production.;