Capacity-based duty demand sustained, but interest and penalty under Rule 96ZP could not be enforced without statutory authority.

Differential duty arising from annual capacity determination under Rule 5 of the Hot-re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 was sustained because the jurisdictional High Court had already upheld the rule and no stay operated from the Supreme Court. The pending civil appeals did not justify setting aside the consequential demand. By contrast, the levy of interest and penalty under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was unsustainable because the Supreme Court had struck down the mandatory penalty component for lack of statutory authority. The duty demand was therefore upheld, while the interest and penalty component was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the demand of differential duty arising from annual capacity determination under Rule 5 of the Hot-re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 could be sustained while the challenge to that rule was pending before the Supreme Court; (ii) whether the levy of interest and penalty under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the demand of differential duty arising from annual capacity determination under Rule 5 of the Hot-re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 could be sustained while the challenge to that rule was pending before the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The annual capacity of production had been determined by applying Rule 5, and the differential duty demand flowed from that determination. The validity of Rule 5 had already been upheld by the jurisdictional High Court, and no stay of that decision had been granted by the Supreme Court. In those circumstances, the Tribunal followed the High Court decision and declined to interfere with the duty demand. The pendency of the civil appeals before the Supreme Court was noted, but it did not justify setting aside the demand at that stage.

Conclusion: The differential duty demand was sustained, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the levy of interest and penalty under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court ruling that struck down the mandatory penalty component under Rule 96ZP as being beyond statutory authority and violative of constitutional guarantees. On that basis, the demand for interest and penalty could not be maintained in law.

Conclusion: The levy of interest and penalty was held unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand was upheld, but the interest and penalty component could not survive. The appeals were disposed of with relief limited to the invalidity of the interest and penalty demand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a jurisdictional High Court has upheld the validity of the rate-determining or capacity-determining provision and no stay operates, the Tribunal may sustain the consequential duty demand; however, a mandatory penalty or interest levy without clear statutory authorization cannot be enforced.

---