TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 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. - E/1022/2004-SM - 20963/2017 - Dated:- 27-6-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Banumurthy, Advocate For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S. S. Garg The present appeal is filed by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner. Subsequently based on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.52-54, 56-58, 60-61 and 63 of 1998 and the decision of the Hon ble Tribunal dated 30.7.2002 in their own case, the appellants filed an refund claim for ₹ 136554.50 being the duty paid in excess on the grounds that in terms of the decisions above, they were liable to pay duty based on actual production instead of in terms of the actual capacity determined by the Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, by his Order-in-Original No.43/2002 dated 27.12.2002 sanctioned the refund of ₹ 136555.00. He held that the actual production of the appellants during the period from 1.9.97 to 2.10.97 was 149.989 MT and the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the subordinate legislation. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR for the Revenue submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal has been settled in favour of the Revenue by the decision of apex court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills: 2011 (269) ELT 298 (SC). He further submitted that assessee filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against the said decision of Doaba Steel Rolling Mills but the review petition has also been dismissed by Supreme Court as reported in 2013 (296) ELT A52 (SC) . While deciding the Review Petition, the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed as under: The Supreme Court in its order under review had held that Rule 5 of Hot Re-rollin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
