Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 1101 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - case of appellant is that they were liable to pay duty based on actual production instead of in terms of the actual capacity determined by the Commissioner - Held that: - the issue is squarely covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH Versus M/s DOABA STEEL ROLLING MILLS [2011 (7) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that Section 3A of the Act is an exception to Section 3 of the Act - the charging Section and being in nature of a non obstante provision, the provisions contained in the said Section override those of Section 3 of the Act. Rule 3 of 1997 Rules framed in terms of Section 3A(2) of the Act lays down the procedure for determining the annual capacity of production of the factory. It was further held that intention of Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the words used in statute. Assessee once shown to be falling within letter of law, he must be taxed however, great hardship it may appear to the judicial mind - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|