2015 (9) TMI 1324

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 21.8.2014 (Annexure A-2) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") claiming the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether it was legally correct for the Hon'ble Tribunal to consider the challenge to the vires of Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. PEPSU Steel Rolling Mills reported as 2013 (288) ELT 321 (SC), when such a challenge was not laid before the Hon'ble Tribunal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....31 of the Finance Act, 2001 (Validation of the action taken has been provided by virtue of the Section 132 of the Finance Act, 2001) shall be applicable in respect of obligation and liabilities incurred under Rules 96ZO and 96ZP of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 before the same were omitted, notwithstanding the omission of Section 3A w.e.f. 11.05.2001? 3. Briefly, the relevant facts as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The assessee was working under the compounded levy scheme during September, 1997 to March 2000 and opted to discharge their duty liability under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for brevity "the Rules") read with Section 3A of the Act. They failed to discharge the duty liability according to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Civil Appeal Nos. 8342-44 of 2004 and 9814 of 2010 in the Apex Court. The Supreme Court vide a common order dated 6.7.2011 set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored that of the Commissioner dated 30.11.2000. Pursuant thereto, the respondent deposited the duty but without interest and the penalty. The respondent along with some other assessees filed a representation before the Commissioner regarding the relevant date for the payment of interest and penalty who vide order dated 12.4.2012 clarified that the interest was payable from the date of decision of the Supreme Court and the penalty was not imposable. The Range Officer, Mandi Gobindgarh vide letter dated 31.7.2013 requested the respondent to deposit the interest and penalty. The....