TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 542
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in all of them. All the assessees are engaged in the manufacture of re-rolling products. The dispute originally originated in respect of determination of annual capacity of production of the said units. On the appellants request, as a consequence of change in parameters, there was subsequent reduction in annual capacity of production of all the units. A dispute arose as to whether in such a situation, Rule 5 of Hot Rerolling Steel Mill Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1997 would apply or the assessees are required to discharge their duty liability in respect of the reduced annual capacity. The said dispute travelled up to Tribunal, who vide their Final Order No.821/2001/DB dated 5th October, 2001, in the case of Dhiman Industries, set ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d no penalty is liable to be imposed. The said order of the Commissioner is impugned by the Revenue. 4. In all other cases the Assistant Commissioner directed the assessees to deposit the interest as well as penalty inasmuch as their representation before the Commissioner has not been accepted by him. The said orders of the Assistant Commissioner are challenged before us. 5. On being questioned, as to how the appeals have been filed before Tribunal against communication of Asstt. Commissioner, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant clarifies that it is not the decision of the Asstt. Commissioner himself, but vide the said communication he is only communicating the decision of the Commissioner. As such, as per the law declared by the Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....em, subsequent to the disposal of the appeal of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. The question as to whether in such a situation the appellants can be saddled with the liability to pay interest with 100% penalty is the question required to be decided in the present appeals. 9. We find that the provisions of Rule 96(ZP) of the said Compounded Levy Rules were omitted from this Statute Books with effect from 01.03.2001 and Section 3 A of the Act was omitted w.e.f. 11.05.2001, without any saving clause. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Processors vs. Union of India reported in 2012 (280) ELT 186 (Guj.) has held that after the omission of the said Rules, proceedings cannot be continued under the omitted Rules inasmuch as there....