TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1576
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igation before this Tribunal. This Tribunal has remanded the matter to the learned Commissioner(Appeals) vide Final Order No.910/2002 dated 16.07.2002 to decide the case afresh after observing the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the present impugned order was passed by the learned Commissioner(Appeals). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant during the relevant period September 1997 to March 1999 engaged in the manufacture of Hot re-rolled iron & steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which was subjected to levy under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the basis of capacity of production of the factory. The learned Commissioner initially determined th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecords of the case, we find that the issue revolves in a very narrow compass and accordingly, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing and disposal. 4. We find that undisputedly, the appellant were engaged in the hot re-rolled products during the period September 1997 to March 1999. The Annual Capacity of Production was finally determined by the Commissioner under the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills, Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 in accordance with the formula prescribed under the said Rules. In the order, the Commissioner determined the Annual Capacity of Production as 8272.798 MTs referring to Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills, Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. Also from the records and the order of the learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... determination of the Annual Capacity of Production of the manufacturer. In the above said case, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows : - 17. Before addressing the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is essential to note at the outset that in all these appeals, there is no challenge to the validity of Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules, inserted vide Notification dated 30th August, 1997 and, therefore, we are only required to interpret it and examine the width of its application. 18. As noted above. Section 3A was inserted in the Act to enable the Central Government to levy Excise duty on manufacture or production of certain notified goods on the basis of annual capacity of production to be determined by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the factory/mill, for the purpose of levy of duty. It is plain that in the absence of any other Rule, providing for any alternative formula or mechanism for re-determination of production capacity of a factory, on furnishing of information to the Commissioner as contemplated in Rule 4(2) of the 1997 Rules, such determination has to be in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3. That being so, it must logically follow that Rule 5 cannot be ignored in relation to a situation arising on account of an intimation under Rule 4(2) of the 1997 Rules. Moreover, the language of Rule 5 being clear and unambiguous, in the sense that in a case where annual capacity is determined/redetermined by applying the formula prescribed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 3, Ru....