Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 286 - AT - Central ExciseDischarge of duty liability from August, 1997 to March, 2000 based upon the annual capacity of production - whether the demand raised by the show caused notice consequent to the determination of production capacity are correct or otherwise? - Held that:- It can be seen from the reproduced letter that Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa had finally determined the annual capacity of production. It is also to be noted that this letter is dated 13.03.2000, issued well after the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (judgment dated 31/03/1998). There is no dispute as to the contents of the above said letter and appellant has also not disputed the fact of receipt of said letter. If that be so, we find that the case of the appellant that the annual capacity of production has not determined finally is factually incorrect. Secondly, on specific query raised from the bench, it was informed that the appellant has not challenged this order dated 13.03.2000 which fixed the annual capacity of production of the appellant. It is settled law that, an order, which is appealable is not appealed against, it attains finality and binds a person against whom said order is issued. In the absence of any challenge and appeal to final determination of the production capacity, we find the efforts of the appellant to contest the findings in the impugned order are incorrect and cannot carry their case any further. Thirdly, we find that the omission of section 3A from the Central Excise Tariff Act from 1.3.2001, may not have much consequence on the case in hand, in as much that production capacity was finally determined in March 2000, which remained in challenge, the appellant should have discharged the duty liability based upon such annual capacity of production as determined by the learned Commissioner. In the absence of such discharge of duty liability the lower authorities were left with no choice but to issue show cause notices for recovery of the duty liability for the period in question. It can be said that these show cause notices in fasten of any new liability of the appellant to get attracted under the mischief of proceeding imitated after the omission of the provisions of section 3A from the Central Excise Act 1944. Fourthly, as argued by the appellant that the show cause notice invokes the determination as done by the learned Commissioner by a letter and does not invoke the letter dated 13.3.2000, hence the demands are incorrect, do not appeal to us, in as much the said letter dated 13.3.2000, which finally fixed the annual production capacity was in continuance of the letter dated 26.09.1997, hence the preposition of the learned counsel needs to be rejected. If there is a confirmation of the provisional fixation of the annual production capacity, whether the show cause notice invokes of the provisional determination or otherwise, also in the absence of any challenge to the annual production capacity finally determined, the duty liability along with interest arises as also the penal provisions which are invoked in this case. - Decided against assessee
|