TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee was determined in terms of Rule 3 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, as 8794.656 Metric Tonnes. The annual capacity having been so fixed, the assessee availed the benefit of the scheme under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as it stood during the relevant point of time. It is admitted case of the assessee that they were unable to continue to pay the Central Excise Duty under the said scheme. This led to the issuance of two show cause notices viz. first one dated 10.6.1998, for the period from September, 1997 to March, 1998 for a sum of Rs.14,68,564/- and the second one dated 18.5.1999, for the period from April, 1998 to March, 1999 for a sum of Rs.26,38,800/-, in all, demanding Rs.41,07,364/- together with interest in terms of Rule 96ZP of the said Rules. Admittedly, the assessee did not submit any reply to the show cause notices, but participated in the adjudication proceedings. The Original Authority by order dated 3.10.2001, confirmed the proposal made in the notices dated 10.6.1998 and 18.5.1999. 3. Challenging the said order, the appellant preferred appeal to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, it appears that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, contended that the issue raised by the assessee, is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HANS STEEL ROLLING MILL V. COMMISSION OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH reported in 2011 (265) E.L.T. 321 (SUPREME COURT), and the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of its earlier decision in the case of COMMISSIONER V. VENUS CASTINGS PVT. LTD. reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 273 (SUPREME COURT), which has also been followed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. Therefore, it is contended that the procedure under compounded levy scheme, is a separate procedure and the question of applying Section 11A to such scheme is not tenable and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the time limit prescribed under one scheme, could be unwarranted for another scheme and the time limit under Section 11A is not an exception. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that though the assessee claims that the Unit has stopped production from 1.4.1998, no intimation was given to the department and therefore, the assessee cannot plead that they are not liable to pay duty beyond 1.4.1998. 7. Learned Standing Counsel further subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y based on annual capacity production under Section 3 of the Act and Hot Re-roling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, is a separate scheme from the normal scheme for collection of central excise duty on goods manufactured in the country and under the same Rules, Rule 96P stipulates the method of payment of duty and it contains a provision regarding time and manner of payment and it also contains provisions regarding the payment of interest and penalty in the event of delay in payment or non-payment of the dues and this being a comprehensive scheme in itself, the general provisions in the Act and Rules are excluded. The Hon'ble Apex Court took note of its earlier decision in the case of COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR VI. RAGHUVAR (INDIA) LTD. reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 311, wherein, it was held that Section 11A of the Act is not an omnibus provision, which stipulates limitation for every kind of action to be taken under the Act and Rules, and an example was cited with regard to the Modvat Scheme and was further held that even in that particular scheme, Section 11A of the Act had no application with regard to the time limit in the administration of that sc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ention of the assessee that they can raise the plea of limitation under Section 11A. In fact, the Tribunal noticed that at any earlier point of time, the assessee never raised such a plea. 11. Coming to the next contention that the manufacturing activities were closed down from 1.4.1998, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, submitted that the assessee is guilty of not informing the department about the stopping of the production and only in July, 1998, they sent a letter to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Pappireddipatty, stating that they proposed to commence operations in August, 1998. Furthermore, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that these contentions were never raised before the adjudicating authority and therefore, the assessee cannot be permitted to canvass the same before this Court. 12. As already stated, the amount of duty payable for the period from April, 1998 to March, 1999 is Rs.26,38,800/-. It is specific contention of the assessee that they stopped production activities from 1.4.1998. When the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order in original, the department had given written instruct....