LexCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH versus M/S. DOABA STEEL ROLLING MILLS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2011] 7 S.C.R. 934 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH v. M/S. DOABA STEEL ROLLING MILLS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3400 of 2003) JULY 6, 2011 [D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] HOT REROLL/NG STEEL MILLS ANNUAL CAPACITY DETERMINATION RULES, 1997: Rule 5 read with rr. 4(2), 3(2), 3(3)-Re-determination of annual capacity of production of specified goods- Applicabi/ity of r.5-HELD: Rule 5 will be attracted for determination of annual capacity of production of th~ factory 0 when any change in the installed machinery or part thereof is intimated to Commissioner of Central Excise in terms of r. 4(2)-Central Excise Act, 1944-s.3(A) (2). CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944: E Section 3A-Power of Central Government to charge excise duty on the basis of capacity of production in respect of notified goods-Purpose of.-Explained - Held: Section 3A is an exception to s. 3, the charging section, and being in nature of a non obstante provision, provisions of s.3A override F those of s.3 - Determination of annual capacity of production of specified goods is to be done as per specific formula prescribed in r.3(3) of the 1997 Rules- That being so, it must logically follow that r. 5 cannot be ignored in relation to a situation arising on account of an intimation under r. 4(2) of G the 1997 Rules. Section 3A(2)-Re-determination of annual production- Held: Second proviso to sub-s. (2) of s. 3A contemplates re- determination of annual production in a case when there is an alteration or modification in any factor relevant to H 934 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH 935 v. DOABA STEEL ROLLING MILLS. production of specified goods, but such re-determination has A · again to be as per the formula in r.3(3) of the 1997 Rules. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: Tax statute - Interpretation of - Held: A taxing statute should be strictly construed-Intention of legislature is B primarily to be gathered from the words used in the statute. APPEAL: Appeal by revenue-;Held: It cannot be said that merely C because in some cases revenue has not questioned the correctness of an order on the same issue, it would operate as a bar for revenue to challenge the order in another case-- However, it is high time when Central Board of Direct and Indirect Taxes comes out with a uniform policy laying down strict parameters for guidance of field staff for filing appeals. D The Assessee (respondent in Civil Appeal N o. 3400 of 2003) was engaged in the manufacture of hot re-rolled steel products of non-alloy steel in a hot steel rolling mill, classifiable. und~r- Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff E Act, 1985. On 5.1.1998, the Commissioner, Central Excise, determined the annual capacity of production of the respondent at 7683.753 MT, as per the formula laid down in sub-r. (3) of r. 3 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. However, keeping in F view r. 5, the annual capacity was fixed at 11961.135 MT. on the basis of actual production of the mills during the financial year 1996-97. At the request of the respondent, the Commissioner, by order~dated 27.1.2000 re- determined the annual capacify'of the mill af7328.435 llilT, G applying the formula as laid down under r. 3(3), but relying on r. 5, he again computed the annual capacity at 11961.135 MT. The appeal filed by the assessee: was allowed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal holding that r. 5 of the Rules could not H 936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R. A be applied in view of the change in technical parameters of the rolling mills. The Commissioner made an application to the High Court uls. 35-H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking a direction to the Tribunal to refer the question of law which according to him arose B from the order of the Tribunal. The High Court rejected the application. In the instant appeals filed by the revenue, .the question for consideration before the Court was: whether r. 5 of the 1997 Rules would apply in a case where a C manufacturer proposes to make some change in the installed machinery or any part thereof and seeks the approval of the Commissioner of Excise in terms of r. 4(2) of the said Rules? D Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Rule 5 of the Hot Rerolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 will be attracted for determination of the annual capacity of E production of the factory when any change
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.