2015 (10) TMI 1694

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he basis of Annual Production Capacity determined under Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 issued under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by Notification No. 42/1998-CE (NT) dated 10.12.1998, as amended. 2. There was a dispute regarding the number of chambers installed in the factory premises of the appellant and fixation of Annual Production Capacity. A show cause notice dated 29.6.1999 was issued proposing demand of differential duty alongwith interest and to impose penalty. By adjudication order dated 30.06.2000, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest.  3. By Notification No. 06/2001-CE (NT) dated 01.3.2001, Rule 96ZQ of the ers....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs. Alwar Processing 2014 (308) ELT 720 (Tri. Del.), on the identical issue, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- 6. Though the show cause notices for duty demand of Rs. 45,55,061/- had been issued during the period prior to omission of Rule 96ZQ i.e. prior to 1-3-2001 and these show cause notices had initially been adjudicated during the period prior to 1-3-2001, on appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals), vide appellate order dated 28-3-200l of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Asstt. Commissioners order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication for quantifi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Hon'ble High Court relying upon the judgments in the case of Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1969) 2 SCC 412 and subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd. reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) concluded that no proceedings could have been initiated under the omitted Rule 96ZQ after omission of Section 3A with effect from 11-5-2001 in absence of any saving clause. The Court further held that all proceedings which were pending as on 11-5-2001, even if initiated prior to omission of Rule 96ZQ would thereafter automatically lapse and no order could be passed if they were not concluded at the time of omission of Section 3A with effect from 11-5-2001. In this judgment, the Hon'ble High ....