CCE & ST, CHENNAI-III AND ORS. Vs. SRI GOVINDA PATHARA ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Cce And St, Chennai -Iii And Ors.
Sri Govinda Pathara Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
D.N. Panda, Member (J) -
(1.)ALTHOUGH aforesaid appeals were in the mention list today, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CCE Chandigarh Vs. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills : 2011 (269) ELT 298 (SC) and Madras High Court in the case of Triveni Alloys Ltd. Vs. CESTAT Chennai : 2014 (306) ELT 617 (Mad.) holding that liability under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is determinable, both sides suggested that this batch of appeals may be disposed with appropriate direction to lower authority to re -determine the liability in accordance with law. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed by this common order.
(2.)LD . Counsels suggested that wherever there was violation of natural justice, no proper determination of Annual Capacity Production (ACP) was made, abatement not allowed and procedure prescribed by Rule 5 of Hot Re -rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 was not followed, such issues be relooked by concerned adjudicating authority, as a result of which both sides shall get reasonable opportunity to resolve their dispute at the gross root level. Added to this, ld. counsels appearing in different cases agreed that there shall be no challenge to leviability of duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of apex court Judgment and decision of Madras High Court. But they prayed that appellants deserve full length of hearing before the learned adjudicating authority to argue on different aspects in addition to proper determination of liability wherever such issues are involved. It is also stated in the Bar that Rule 5 of the Hot Re -rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 being under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.A. No. 1620/2003 by M/s. Madras Steel Re -Rollers Vs. UOI, the outcome of that judgment be also applied by learned adjudicating authority while they complete re adjudication following principles of natural Justice the direction of the Tribunal made by this order.
Revenue agreed to aforesaid propositions.
(3.)IN view of law laid down in aforesaid Judgments and agreement of both sides to reduce the dispute expeditiously before concerned adjudicating authority, all the appeals listed in Sl. No. 17 to 39 of the cause list (Mention) are remanded to adjudicating authority concerned with the following directions: -
(i) Ld. authority shall grant fair opportunity of hearing to appellants to argue on the facts and evidence borne by record and no fresh evidence shall be entertained.
(ii) The authority shall also follow the ratio laid down in the following judgments and the appellant shall have proper opportunity of hearing on the basis of the ratio laid down in these cases: -
(a) Triveni Alloys Ltd. Vs. CESTAT Chennai : 2014 (206) ELT 617 (Mad.)
(b) CCE Chandigarh Vs. DOABA Steel Rolling Mills : 2011 (269) ELT 298 (SC)
(iii) Wherever abatement is permissible, that shall be allowed by the authority concerned in accordance with law.
(iv) Since appellants have grievance of violation of natural justice, the authority shall do justice to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to prevent repetitive litigation.
(v) Wherever determination of ACP arises, the authority with due regard to Rule 3 of Hot Re -rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 shall determine the same on the basis of materials on record and the appellants shall get proper opportunity of hearing to lead their defence in that regard.
(vi) Since it is mentioned in the Bar that Rule 5 of Hot Re -rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 is under challenge before Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the writ application as aforesaid, the authority shall be guided by judgment of the Hon'ble High Court if Judgment therein comes while doing readjudication. Otherwise his decision shall be subject to outcome thereof. In such event, the authority shall mention in his order that the readjudication order is subject to outcome of the writ application above.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.