TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 26-7-2011 - Mr. P.G. Chacko, Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Appearance: S/Shri Mayur Shroff and Prakash Shah, Advocates, for appellants Shri Sunil Kalra, JDR, for respondent Per: P.G. Chacko In the appeal filed by M/s Atul Synthetics Processors (P) Ltd, the challenge is against the demand of duty, interest and penalty.In the appeals filed by M/s Sunil Industries Ltd, the challenge is against penalties. In the appeals filed by the department, the grievance of the appellant is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) short-demanded duty from the assessee. In all these cases, the basic dispute revolves around the applicability of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. After hearing both sides, we note that these a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. The entire order of the Commissioner is under challenge in the appeals of this assessee. 3. The learned counsel for the assessees have relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Beauty Dyers, case (supra), as also certain orders passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. In the case of Beauty Dyers (supra), the Hon'ble Madras High Court (Single Judge) struck down Notification No. 42/98-CE (NT) issued by the Central Government laying down the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules for the purpose of determination of ACP as part of the Compounded Levy Scheme in respect of textile fabrics manufactured by independent textile processors. The Hon'ble High Court particularly held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise Appeal No. 63/2006 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai V vs CEWAT (I) Processors, wherein a more or less similar question of law was disposed of without answering in view of the fact that the apex court had dismissed the special leave petition filed against the Madras High Court's judgment in Beauty Dyers' case. It has also been contextually pointed out by the counsel that the special leave petition filed against the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay's decision in CEWAT (I) Processors' case was also dismissed by the apex court. 5. From the case law cited before us, it appears that no demand of duty can be enforced against any of the assessees under Rule 96ZQ/Section 3A inasmuch as the Annual Capacity Determination Rules were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
