- (1.) The assessee has filed the present appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, the Act') against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, "the Tribunal"), in Final Order No. 1517/06-SM(BR) dated 18-10-2006, raising the following substantial questions of law :- (i) Whether duty can be demanded for the period September 1997 to March 2002 on the basis of Show Cause Notices dated 24-9-1998, 3-11-1998 and 27-8-2002 when the duty liability was finally determined on 29-3- 2004? (ii Whether the show cause notices dated 24-9-1998 and 27-8-2002 respectively are time-barred? (ii Whether interest on demand of duty can be confirmed by Hon'ble Tribunal for the period prior to the date of determination of the annual capacity? (iv Whether natural justice has been violated by respondent by ignoring the submissions made by the appellant; wrongly and arbitrarily interpreting the supporting documentary evidence produced by the appellant? (v) Whether order of the respondent No. 1 is sustainable in law? (vi Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, orders passed by Respondents are arbitrary, illegal and perverse and thus liable to be quashed?
(2.) The assessee in the present case is manufacturer of non-alloy steel products falling under Chapter-72 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. With effect from 1-9-1997, the products manufactured by the appellant were subjected to duty under Compounded Levy Scheme under the Act. To give effect to the scheme, Section 3A was added in the Act and Rule 96ZP was added in the Central Excise Rules, 1944 . As the basis for levy of excise duty under the Compound Levy Scheme was capacity of production, to determine the capacity of production. Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Determination Rules, 1997 (for short, 'the Capacity Determination Rules'), were framed for the purpose. Certain parameters were provided in the Capacity Determination Rules on the basis of which the capacity was to be determined.
(3.) Vide order dated 10-12-1997, annual capacity of production of the appellant was determined as 1445 MT. However, in appeal, the Tribunal vide order dated 24-12-1998, while setting aside the order remanded the case back to the Commissioner for fresh decision. Prior thereto on the basis of capacity already determined vide order dated 10-12-1997, the respondents had issued show cause notice to the appellant for payment of duty. After remand by the Tribunal, the annual capacity of production was determined by the Commissioner vide order dated 9- 2-2000. The above order was again set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 4-9-2000 and the case was remanded back. Finally it was on 29-3-2004 that the annual capacity of production of the assessee was determined as 1445 MT from 1-9-1997 to 1-8-1999, and 970.392 MT for the period from 2-8-1999 to 31-3-2000 and it was on the basis thereof that the duty was demanded from the appellant, which according to the appellant, has already been paid and the dispute in the present case remains only for the payment of interest on account of delay in payment thereof.;