2018 (10) TMI 1538 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands case for re-quantification of duty, stresses adherence to its directions

Vijay Steel, Harsh Industries, Garg Casteels Pvt. Limited, Patran Steel Industries, JR Steel Industries, Sachdeva Steel Products, Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills, Sonthalia Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Limited, Aggarwal Industries, LG Industries, Dayal Steel Pvt. Limited, Satnarayan Steel Industries, Sains Steel Re Rolling Mill Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Bhavnagar

The Tribunal allowed all appeals by remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority for re-quantification of duty in accordance with its previous order ... Valuation - Ingots and Billets/ Non alloys steel Hot-re-rolled products - Changed parameters - re-quantification of demand - Rule 4 of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 - Held that:- Except for the re-quantification as directed by the Tribunal, nothing was open either for the Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) to deviate from the directions given by the Tribunal. The lower authorities have relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Doaba Steel Rolling Mills [2011 (7) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. In this regard, we find that the decision in the case of Doaba Steel Rolling Mills cannot be made applicable in the present case when the Tribunal’s order in the appellant’s own case has attained finality as the department has not challenged the said order. Therefore, even though there is contrary view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same will not apply in the present case. Whereas, in the present case itself, the order was passed and therefore, ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable in the facts of the present case. The only right course of action on the part of the Revenue was to challenge the Tribunal order and if the Revenue chose not to challenge the said order then that order attained finality and it cannot automatically be set-aside on the basis of adverse order in some other party’s case. Both the lower authorities have gravely erred in not following the Tribunal’s directions for re-quantification of duty on the basis of changed parameters, in terms of Rule 4 of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 - the Assistant Commissioner is directed to re-quantify the demand in terms of Tribunal’s order - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Dispute over redetermination of production capacity under Rule 4 based on changed parameters.2. Applicability of Tribunal's directions in re-quantification of duty.3. Consideration of previous judgments in deciding the case.Analysis:Issue 1: The case involved a dispute regarding the redetermination of production capacity by the appellants, who were engaged in manufacturing steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellants opted for discharging duty liability based on Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) under the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. The Commissioner confirmed demands based on actual production in 1996-97, which was higher than the annual capacity. The Tribunal held that a reduction in capacity due to parameter changes required re-determination under Rule 4, not Rule 5, and remanded the matter for quantification of duty based on changed parameters.Issue 2: The appellants argued that the Assistant Commissioner should have followed the Tribunal's directions for re-quantification of duty based on changed parameters. The Tribunal emphasized that once its order in the appellants' case had attained finality and the department had not challenged it, the decision in Doaba Steel Rolling Mills case, cited by the lower authorities, was not applicable. The Tribunal directed the Assistant Commissioner to re-quantify the demand in accordance with its order dated 09.10.2001 in the appellants' case.Issue 3: The appellants cited various case laws to support their argument that the Tribunal's directions should be followed without revisiting the merits of the case. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the lower authorities erred in not adhering to its directions for re-quantification of duty based on changed parameters. It emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's principle regarding challenging orders applied to different cases, not to the present case where the Tribunal's order had attained finality.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all appeals by remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority, directing re-quantification of duty in line with its previous order in the appellants' case. The judgment highlighted the importance of following tribunal directions and upholding finality of decisions in specific cases.