TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Shri Surinder Steel Rolling Mill vide [2014 (7) TMI 699 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], has taken note of the said decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Processors, as also other decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and has come to a finding that the adjudication order passed subsequent to 01.03.2001, even where the proceedings were initiated prior to the said date, cannot be sustained. Provisions of Rule 96 (ZP), of the Annual Capacity Determination Rules have been held to be ultra vires by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Bansal Alloys and Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in [2010 (11) TMI 83 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] as also by the Hon’ble High Court of Him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al ORDER NO.53362-53365/2014 - Dated:- 21-8-2014 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. R.K.Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S.Malhotra, Advocate, Shri A. S. Hasija, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Yashpal Sharma, DR, Ms. Sweta Bector, DR JUDGEMENT PER: ARCHANA WADHWA All the 4 appeals, one filed by the Revenue and the other by the assessee are being taken up together, as the issue involved is identical in all of them. All the assessees are engaged in the manufacture of re-rolling products. The dispute originally originated in respect of determination of annual capacity of production of the said units. On the appellants request, as a consequence of change in parameters, there was subsequent reduction in annual capaci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is seen that the assessees Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities passed detention notice orders for imposition of penalty to the extent of 100% of the deferential duty as also for confirmation of interest. The said so-called orders were represented by the assessees before their Jurisdictional Commissioner. The Commissioner vide his order dated 12.04.2012 in the case of Dhiman Industries held that no interest is leviable and no penalty is liable to be imposed. The said order of the Commissioner is impugned by the Revenue. 4. In all other cases the Assistant Commissioner directed the assessees to deposit the interest as well as penalty inasmuch as their representation before the Commissioner has not been accepted by him. The said or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the orders of the Hon ble Supreme Court. We find that the original dispute was only in respect of the determination of annual capacity of production and there were no penalty imposed in the original proceedings. 7. On the success of Revenue s appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court, thus settling the legal issue in favour of the Revenue, all the assessees became liable to pay the differential duty, which was undisputedly paid by them, subsequent to the disposal of the appeal of the Hon ble Supreme Court. 8. The question as to whether in such a situation the appellants can be saddled with the liability to pay interest with 100% penalty is the question required to be decided in the present appeals. 9. We find that the provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Shubh Timb Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2012 (286) ELT 495 (H.P.). As such, no penalty can be imposed under the said Rules. Otherwise also we find that the original dispute related to Annual Determination of Annual Production Capacity which culminated against the assessees by the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court. In between, the Tribunals orders as also of the Hon ble High Courts orders were in favour of the assessees. The said fact reflects that this is a case of bonafide interpretation of the provisions of law and the element of any malafide is missing, in which case imposition of penalty cannot be called for. 12. As regards confirmation of interest, we find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
