CONROS STEELS PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD
LAWS(CE)-2015-2-83
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on February 27,2015

Conros Steels Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. V. CCE,MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
UNIROLS AIRTEX VS. ASSISTANT COMMR. OF C. EX., COIMBATORE [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. KASHMIR CONDUCTORS [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (T)
(2.)THE application for rectification of mistake has been made against final order No. A/507/14/EB/C -II - dated 8 -7 -2014 passed by this Tribunal. Vide impugned order, this Tribunal held that when there is a default in payment of excise duty which continues for a period beyond thirty days from due date then the assessee has to pay excise duty on each consignment at the time of removal without utilizing the Cenvat credit till the date the assessee pays the outstanding amount including interest thereon as envisaged under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The said view was taken by this Tribunal in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Industries v. CCE, Bangalore - : 2013 -TIOL -285 -HC -KAR -CX : 2014 (308) E.L.T. 7 (Kar.) and of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Uni -rols Airtex v. CCE, Coimbatore : 2013 (296) E.L.T. 449 (Mad). However, since the adjudicating authority did not follow this law laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts and allowed clearance of excisable goods during the default period by utilizing the Cenvat credit, the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration and passing of an order in accordance with law quantifying the duty demand liable to be paid in cash and also interest liability on the delayed payment of duty.
The learned Counsel for the appellant/assessee, M/s. Conros Steels Pvt. Ltd., submits that there are two errors committed by this Tribunal apparent on the face of the records which needs rectification. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Shreeji Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. decided on 4 -12 -2014 reported in : 2014 -TIOL -2235 -HC -AHM -CX : 2015 (320) E.L.T. 764 (Guj.) has held that Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is ultra vires and has been struck down by Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global. Ltd. v. UOI - : 2014 -TIOL -2115 -HC -AHM -CX decided on 26/27 November 2014 and since the provisions have been struck down the order passed by this Tribunal needs rectification. It is also submitted that the order passed by this Tribunal goes beyond the issue raised in the show -cause notice and the adjudication order. Accordingly, he prays for rectification of mistake. He also relies on the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - : 2006 (202) E.L.T. 177 (Tri -LB) : 2008 (10) S.T.R. 91 (Tri. -LB) wherein it has been held that when Supreme Court pronounces on the true position of law, any decisions rendered by any other authority contrary to that, is required to be regarded as an error which is apparent on record and rectification of such an error within period permissible under law is required to be effected.

(3.)THE learned Commissioner (AR) appearing for the revenue on the other hand submits that the order relied upon by the Counsel has been passed more than four months after the Tribunal passed the impugned order and since the Tribunal's decision is based on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the cases cited supra, there is no error which requires rectification. He also relies on the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Kashmir Conductors - : 1997 (96) E.L.T. 257 (Tribunal) wherein it has been held that the decision of a particular High Court should be certainly followed by all authorities within the territory jurisdiction of that High Court and that authorities in other states are not bound to follow the views taken by a particular High Court in the absence of a decision by the jurisdictional High Court with regard to constitutionality of a provision. Since the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal does not come within the purview of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, it is his submission that the said decision need not be followed, especially considering the fact that the department has already challenged the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court before the Apex Court.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.