LexM/S HANS STEEL ROLLING MILL. versus COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 841
M/S HANS STEEL ROLLING MILL.
v.
COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH
(Civil Appeal No. 2715 of 2003)
MARCH 10, 2011
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]
HOT RE-ROLLING STEEL MILLS ANNUAL CAPACITY
DETERMINATION RULES, 1997:
Rule 96ZP read with s. 3A of Central Excise Act-
Compound Levy Scheme-Applicability of s.11-A -Held:
A
B
c
Compound levy scheme for collection of duty based on
annual capacity production uls 3 and Capacity Determination
0
Rules is a separate scheme from the normal scheme for
collection of central excise duty -It is a comprehensive
scheme in itself and general provisions in the Act and Rules
are excluded - The time limit prescribed for one scheme
would be completely unwarranted for another scheme and the
E
time limit prescribed uls 11A of the Act is no exception.
The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of
iron and steel products falling under Chapters 72 and 73
of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period
ranging from 1.9.1997 to 31.3.2000, the goods
F
manufactured by the appellants 1997 to 31.3.2000, the
goods manufactured by the appellants were chargeable
to Central Excise Duty in terms of s. 3A of the Act, and
the payment of duty was to be under Rule 96ZP of the
Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Hot-Re-rolling Steel Mills G
Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 were
introduced by notification no. 32/97-CE (NT) dated
01.08.1997, wherein the manner and procedure for
determination of annual capacity of rolling mill was
841
H
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 3 S.C.R.
A provided. The Commissioner of Central Excise
determined the Annual Capacity to be 3355 MT. A show
cause notice was issued to the appellants on 3.11.1998,
contending that the demand of the duty has to be based
on the capacity determination of 3355MT, for which the
B recovery of duty u/s. 11A of the Act amounting to Rs
2,19,750.00 was to be made. Subsequently, the appellants
changed the parameters of their re-rolling mill and
applied for the re-determination of the annual capacity for
fresh declaration in terms of Capacity Determination
c Rules. On 31.5.1999, the Commissioner passed an order
stating the Capacity Determination Rules as 1890MT. The
appellants filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The larger
Bench of the Tribunal, held that in case of the
manufacturer operating under Compound Levy Scheme
0 in terms of s. 3A of the Act, and Rule 96ZP of the Central
Excise Rules, recovery mechanism provided in terms of
s. 11 A of the Act was not to be followed and hence the
matter was to be remanded back to the Commissioner for
re-determination. In the instant appeal filed by the
assessee, the question for consideration before the
E Court was whether the provisions of time limit contained
in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would be
applicable to the recovery of amounts due under the
compound levy scheme for Hot-Re-rolling mills, under the
Annual Capacity determination Rules 1997.
F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1. It is clearly established that the
appellants are availing the facilities under the Compound
G Levy Scheme, which they themselves, opted for and filed
declarations furnishing details about annual capacity of
production and duty payable on such capacity of
production. It has to be taken into consideration that the
compounded levy scheme for collection of duty based
on annual capacity of production u/s. 3 of the Act and Hot
H
HANS STEEL ROLLING MILL v. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL 843
EXCISE
Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination A
Rules, 1997 is a separate scheme from the normal
scheme for collection of central excise duty on goods
manufactured in the country. Under the same, Rule 96P
of the Rules stipulate the method of pay~ent and Rule
96P .contains detailed provision regard,ng time and
B
manner of payment and it also contain~ provisions
relating to payment of interest and penalty in event of
delay in payment or non-payment of dues. Thus, this is
a comprehensive scheme in itself and general provisions
in the Act and Rules are excluded. [Para 12] [847-C-E]
c
Commissioner of C. EX & Customs v. Venus Castings
(P) Ltd 2000 (117) ELT 273 (SC); Union of India v. Supreme
Steels and General Mills 2001 (133) ELT 513 {SC) and
Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur V. Raghuvar (India) Ltd
2000 (118) ELT 311 (SC) -relied on
D
1.2. The Tribunal has rightly held that tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.