Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Dada Associates, Deep Jyoti Dyg. And ... vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 15 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(162)ELT971(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. After hearing both sides on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty (as per details given in the Annexure-A to this order) imposed on the appellants units on the ground of short payment of duty/delay in payment of duty, we find that it was possible to decide the appeals themselves as the issue in dispute stands settled by the Madras High Court judgment in the case of Beauty Dyers v. Union of India and Ors. 2002 (52) RLT 636.
2. The duty demand and penalties arise under the compounded levy scheme under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 and Rule 96ZQ(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. We find that the High Court has struck down Rule 3 of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 and the notification issued thereunder as ultra vires of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore the demand and penalties in the present case are not sustainable as they stem from Rule 3 of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 197. Following the ratio of the above decisions we set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allow the appeals with liberty to the department to proceed against the appellants under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in terms of the High Court order.