Final Order Nos. A/670-672/98-NB and Stay Order Nos. S/567-69/98-NB arising from in Stay Appln. Nos. E/S/1306, 1315 & 1316/98-NB in Appeal Nos. E/1733, 1761 & 1762/98-NB. Case: Puspa Industrial Corpn. Vs Commr. of C. Ex., Allahabad/Raipur. Central Information Commission

Case NumberFinal Order Nos. A/670-672/98-NB and Stay Order Nos. S/567-69/98-NB arising from in Stay Appln. Nos. E/S/1306, 1315 & 1316/98-NB in Appeal Nos. E/1733, 1761 & 1762/98-NB
CounselFor Appellant: Shri M.P. Devnath and Joseph Pookkatt, Advocates and For Respondents: Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, JDR.
JudgesShri G.R. Sharma, Member (T) and A.C.C. Unni, Member (J)
IssueCentral Excise Act, 1944 - Section 3A(4)
Judgement DateJuly 10, 1998
CourtCentral Information Commission


G.R. Sharma, Member (T), (Northern Bench At New Delhi)

  1. The captioned 3 Appeals along with respective Stay Petitions, were taken up together; heard together in as much as the issue involved in all the three Appeals was the same and are being disposed of by this common order.

  2. While determining the Annual Production Capacity of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mill, the ld. Commissioner passed a format order which does not give reasons for coming to the conclusion and is not a speaking order at all.

  3. Shri M.P. Devnath and Joseph Pookkatt, ld. Advocates appear for the above Appellants and submit that with effect from 1-9-1997, Government of India introduced a new scheme of charging duty on the basis of Annual Production Capacity of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills. For this purpose, amendments were affected in Central Excise Act, 1944 and new Section 3A was introduced. Section 3A provided for specification of the goods to which this method of levy was applied. This section also provides for the procedure for determining the Annual Production Capacity. The ld. Counsels submitted that the rules are very clear; that the first thing that the Government shall do was by issue of a Notification specifying the goods and by finding the determinants calculate the Annual production capacity. It was pointed out before us that sub-section (4) of Section 3A specifically provided as under:

    Section 3A.

    (4) Where an assessee claims that the actual production of notified goods in his factory is lower than the production determined under sub-section (2), the Commissioner of Central Excise shall, after giving an opportunity to the assessee to produce evidence in support of his claim, determine the actual production and redetermine the amount of duty payable by the assessee with reference to such actual production at the rate specified in sub-section (3).

  4. The ld. Counsels submitted that no opportunity was given to them before coming to the decision contained in the impugned order. Thus, the ld. Counsels contended that there has been total failure of justice and the principles of natural justice have been totally violated. They, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders may be stayed and the matters may be referred back to the Commissioner for passing speaking orders after hearing the Appellants to substantiate their claim.

  5. Replying to the contentions, the ld. JDR, Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, submits that Section 3A(2) and Section 3A(4) provided for...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT