2004 (7) TMI 583 - Commission - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Settlement of duty liability based on actual production basis, challenge to Commissioner's determination of Annual Capacity of Production (ACP), pending appeal before CEGAT, validity of compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, fresh disclosure of duty liability, inoperational furnace and duty liability adjustment.

Analysis:
1. The applicant, a registered unit for manufacturing MS ingots, challenged the Commissioner's fixed Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) as it exceeded actual production. Appeals were made to CEGAT, resulting in a remand for redetermination of ACP. Despite requests for duty liability based on actual production, SCNs were issued alleging non-compliance with ACP, leading to a confirmed demand of Rs. 95,50,006/- and penalties. An appeal is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Meerut-I challenging this order.

2. During the admission hearing, the applicant's advocate highlighted the CEGAT's favorable ruling on ACP redetermination and the inadvertent excess duty payment due to a defective furnace. The Revenue did not contest the applicant's eligibility for settlement. The Bench reviewed all submissions, emphasizing the uncertainty during the scheme's operation and the need for redetermination based on actual production.

3. The Bench noted the settled law post the Apex Court's judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs v. Venus Castings (P) Ltd., which impacted the applicant's disclosure. Considering the Minakshi Castings case's relevance, SCNs predating its order were deemed ineligible for settlement due to lack of fresh disclosure, totaling Rs. 30,50,002/-. The inoperational furnace claim for duty reduction was rejected based on precedent.

4. Only SCNs postdating the Minakshi Castings case were allowed for settlement, amounting to Rs. 65,00,004/-. A portion of the already paid amount was to be adjusted, with the remaining sum to be deposited within a stipulated time. The excluded SCNs were not considered for settlement, establishing the Bench's jurisdiction over the case.

5. The judgment's conclusion solidified the Bench's exclusive jurisdiction over the settled SCNs, as per Section 32-I of the Act, ensuring continued oversight in the case's resolution and enforcement.