TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (1) TMI 585
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sis of the Annual Capacity of Production [ACP, for short] as determined by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 [ACD Rules 1998, for short]. The Commissioner had provisionally determined their ACP in terms of value of goods at Rs. 703.20 lakhs as per order No. 5/99, dated 1-3-1999 subsequently, after necessary verification of relevant facts relating to the stenter, the ACP in terms of value was finally fixed at Rs. 744.684 lakhs w.e.f. 6-3-1999 as per the Commissioner's Order No. 52/99, dated 29-3-1999. The appellants discharged their monthly duty liability accordingly. 2. The length of the galleries attached to the stenter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t allowed them to approach the Commissioner for a speaking/appealable order. The order impugned in the present appeal is pursuant to the Final Order ibid. The impugned order of the Commissioner is to the same effect as he had communicated to the party in letter dated 22/26-12-2000 ibid. 3. The appellants' challenge is mainly on the ground that the Commissioner's order is not a speaking order on the refund claim. According to the appellants, Explanation I to Rule 5 of the ACD Rules, 2000 brought into force by Notification No. 14/2000, ibid, which excluded galleries from being counted as Chambers of Hot Air Stenter, has to be given retrospective effect and, accordingly, the duty paid on account of inclusion of galleries as Hot Air Chamb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty liability vide operative part of the order extracted below :- "I hereby determine the Annual Capacity of Production in terms of value including gallery and booster as Rs. 1021.32 lacs with monthly duty liability as Rs. 10894 lacs for the period from 16-12-1998 to 5-3-1999 and Annual Capacity of Production in terms of value excluding booster as Rs. 744.684 lacs and monthly duty liability as Rs. 7.943 lacs w.e.f. 6-3-1999 onwards." It does not require long-drawn arguments to establish that any order passed by a Commissioner of Central Excise finally determining the duty liability of a manufacturer of excisable goods, whether under Section 3 or 3A of the Central Excise Act, is appealable to this Tribunal. It has also been consistently hel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passing his order." 6. We have not been able to find anything in Mafatlal Industries (supra) that could support the present appellants' case. On the other hand, Paragraphs 70 and 99 of the Supreme Court's judgment supports the view taken by the Commissioner. The relevant extracts are as under :- "One of the important principles of law, based upon public policy, is the sanctity attaching to the finality of any proceeding, be it a suit or any other proceeding. Where a duty has been collected under a particular order which has become final, the refund of that duty cannot be claimed unless the order (whether it is an order of assessment, adjudication or any other order under which the duty is paid) is set aside according to law." [Para ....