2015 (9) TMI 827

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the material periods (June, 1999 to March, 2000 in one case and April to October 2000 in the other case). This Court admitted these appeals on 23.04.2009 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the 2nd respondent Tribunal is justified in dismissing the appeals of the Revenue and whether the 2nd respondent Tribunal has further erred in law in not holding that the duty should be paid first and then abatement claimed under Rule 96ZQ(7) (e) of Central Excise Rules, 1994? and 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the 2nd repspondent Tribunal has further erred in law in holding that a revenue neutral situation is discernible in this case without taking into....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peals by setting aside the Orders in Original. As against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue went before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal, while dismissing the appeals held as follows: "4. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we are of the considered view that, as the provisions of Section 3 A of the Act remained the same, prior to and after 28.02.1999, the Board's circular has got to be examined in the light of the said provisions. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 A provided for levy and collection of duty of excise on notified goods. Its proviso provided for abatement of duty for any continuous period of closure of factory of not less than 7 days subject to fulfilment of such conditions as mig....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the decision reported in 2004 (166) E.L.T. 27 (Mad.),  in the case of Beauty Dyers vs. Union of India, this Court has held that Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998; Rules framed under Notification Nos. 14/2000-C.E. (N.T.) and 19/2000-C.E. and Notification No. 2/99-C.E. are ultra vires of erstwhile Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The relevant paragraphs of the order reads as under: "13. As rightly submitted by learned counsel all chambers irrespective of the nature, age and their capacity cannot be treated equally for the purpose of fixing the annual capacity of production, as the same has been done under Notification No. 42/1998. The rules framed under Notification N....