2017 (10) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ules, 1944 read with Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 3 of the Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. 3. The impugned order was passed by the first respondent without prejudice to the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.17001 of 1997, wherein it appears that the petitioner has challenged the very rule and its applicability. 4. In my considered view, on account of subsequent developments, it may not be necessary for this Court, to go into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner before this Court, as the issue is now pending consideration before the CESTAT, in an appeal filed by the petitioner. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the validity and sustainability of the impugned order dat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d with 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, they are not eligible to claim abatement of duty for temporary closure of unit. Therefore, they were directed to pay monthly levy in full as communicated in the office order. 7. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 15.10.1998 was issued directing the petitioner to pay differential duty for the period from April 1998 till September 1998. The petitioner sent a reply among other things contending that Rule 5 of the said rules cannot be invoked, in the absence of any amendment, Rule 5 would, in law, cease to exist for the financial year 1998-1999. Several other contentions were raised in the reply to the show cause notice. Since the copy of the show cause notice was marked to the Additional Commiss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted the petitioner to pre deposit Rs. 36,50,400/-. Since this was not complied with, the appeal was rejected against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the CESTAT and an interim order was passed directing the petitioner to pre deposit 50% of the due within a period of eight weeks. The petitioner did not comply with the condition, but, filed an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.2922 of 2005, whereby the Division Bench, by judgment dated 13.12.2012, modified the order of the Tribunal by reducing the amount to Rs. 15,00,000/- and ordered that on such payment, the appeal shall stand restored to the file of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). On such remand, the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an or....