Court upholds duty demand for non-alloy steel products under Compounded Levy Scheme. Interest charged from duty due date.

The court dismissed the appeal by the manufacturer of non-alloy steel products, upholding the duty demand under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The court ruled that interest on duty should be charged from the date duty was required to be paid, not from the final capacity determination date. The original capacity determination remained unchanged. No substantial question of law was found, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the following substantial questions of law:
(i) Duty demand for the period September 1997 to March 2002 based on Show Cause Notices dated 24-9-1998, 3-11-1998, and 27-8-2002 u/s 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
(ii) Time-barred show cause notices dated 24-9-1998 and 27-8-2002.
(iii) Confirmation of interest on duty demand before the annual capacity determination date.
(iv) Allegation of violation of natural justice by respondent and misinterpretation of documentary evidence.
(v) The sustainability of the order of respondent No. 1 in law.
(vi) Arbitrariness, illegality, and perversity in the orders passed by Respondents.

Details of Judgment:

1. The appellant, a manufacturer of non-alloy steel products, was subjected to duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme u/s 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The capacity of production was determined based on the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Determination Rules, 1997.

2. The annual capacity of production was initially determined as 1445 MT on 10-12-1997. However, after appeals and remands, the final capacity was reconfirmed as 1445 MT for the period from 1-9-1997 to 1-8-1999, and 970.392 MT for the subsequent period.

3. The appellant contended that interest on duty should be charged only from the final capacity determination date of 29-3-2004. However, the court held that interest should be charged from the date duty was required to be paid, considering the original capacity determination remained unchanged.

4. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose, and no costs were awarded.

---