2014 (7) TMI 699

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....02.2005 confirming orders of the respective adjudicating authorities, dated 14.05.2002 and 22.07.2004 and thereby confirming levy of excise duty, interest and penalties as specified in the respective proceedings. Show cause notices were issued on 30.10.98 culminating in the adjudicating order and the appellate order impugned in Excise Appeal No. E/397 of 2005. Insofar as the Excise Appeal No.E/1354 of 2005, show cause notices were issued on 30.09.98, 29.12.98, 1.4.99, 29.7.99, 2.11.99, 29.3.2000 and 31.3.2000 culminating in the adjudication order dated 22.07.2004 and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the assessees appeal. As the issues and relevant facts are substantially similar, we record the facts as presented in Appeal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e duty liability remained un-altered. On appeal against this provisional order, this Tribunal by the order dated 3.2.2000 disposed of the appeal as infructuous on the ground that final determination is due; and directed the Commissioner to finalise the annual capacity of the unit, expeditiously. Consequently, vide adjudication order dated 31.05.2004, the Commissioner re-determined the annual capacity of the unit as 5559.810 MT, under Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules. 5. A dispute as to whether the duty liability on the appellant and similarly circumstanced manufacturers should be worked out under Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules, was in dispute at several levels, meanwhile. Eventually by the judgement of the Supreme Court dated 8.1.2013 in Civil Appeal No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es with effect from 1st March, 2001, the adjudicating authority could thereafter have initiated action for breach thereof by issuance of show cause notice and/or could have continued with the proceedings initiated but not concluded prior thereto? (ii) Whether any obligation or liability incurred under Section 3 A of the Act is saved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and whether after the omission of Section 3 A of the Act with effect from 11th May, 2001 proceedings initiated under the Rules 96 ZQ, 96 ZP and 96 ZO of the Rules would survive? (iii) Whether Section 38 A of the Act saves all obligations and liabilities incurred under Rule 96ZQ of the Rules? If yes, whether the said position would prevail even after the omission of Secti....