2015 (10) TMI 852

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he 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 v. PEPSU Steel Rolling Mills reported as 2013(288) ELT 321 (SC), when such a challenge was not laid before the Hon'ble Tribunal or the Hon'ble High Court or even Hon'ble Supreme Court by the said Party and whether on this very ground alone, the order of Hon'ble Tribunal is not liable to be set aside? ii) Whether it is legally correct, fair and proper in holding th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 before the same were omitted, notwithstanding the omission of Section 3A w.e.f. 11.05.2001? 2. 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 the determined annual capacity vide order dated 12.5.2000 and filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 5.1.2001 set aside the order and remanded the case back to the Commissioner for re-determination of annual capacity of production. The department filed an appeal before this Cour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ai Bharat Maruti Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-III, Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Gurgaon (Haryana)] decided on 12.9.2013 and CEA No. 39 of 2013 [Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II v. M/s Pee Iron & Steel Co. (P) Ltd., Derabassi] decided on 4.3.2014, where following the earlier decision of this Court in Bansal Alloys and Metals Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra), the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. This Court in Bansal Alloys & Metals Pvt. Ltd's case (supra) while deciding the question of vires of Rules 96ZO(3), 96ZP and 96ZQ of the Rules held the said provisions to the extent of providing for mandatory minimum penalty without mens rea and without any element of discretion as excessive and unreasonabl....