Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. All the appeals raises a common question of law and facts, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.

2. The appellants were assessed for duty in terms of Section 3A and erstwhile Central Excise Rules 96ZO. The assessments are still provisional. The appellants had claimed abatement during the provisionality of the assessments, which have not been given and hence, these appeals.

3. The learned Counsel submits that without raising demands, the present confirmation of demands is not as per law except in one case i.e. in the case of Bannari Amman Steels. He submits that the charging Section 3(A) has been deleted with effect from 11.5.2001 of Finance Act 2001 without saving clause. Both the Rules 97ZO and 97ZP come within the ambit of Section 3A and as Section 3(A) has been deleted, therefore the question of raising demands does not arise. He submits that this position of law has been confirmed by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Mitra Steel & Alloys P. Ltd. by Final Order No. A/1444-1446/WZB/2005 dated 12.8.2005. This ruling has been applied in another case of Kundil Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Goa by Final Order No. A/1420-1421/WZB/IB-CI dated 24.11.2005. He also submitted that the show cause notice raising demands prior to determination of ACP is also not sustainable in the light of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Kanishk Steel Industries reported in 2005 (191) ELT 231. He contends that these submissions have been upheld by this bench in the case of Vijaya Steel Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore-II by Final Order No. 630/2006 dated 23.3.2006 and similar demands raised in M/s. Vijaya Steels have all been set aside following the ratio of these judgments. He contends that the demands are not sustainable in law in the light of the cited judgment and prays for granting waiver and staying its recovery. He further submits that the Tribunal in the case of Paragon Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Calicut 2005 (192) ELT 984 (Tri.-Bang.) has also considered in like manner and has held that abatement is required to be granted when the closure and restart of the factory has been sent in time to the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Superintendent. The learned Counsel submits that these judgment and the judgment rendered in the case of S.M.M Steel Re-Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Calicut on the same proposition is clearly applicable to the facts of the case and merits.

5. We notice from the Final Order No. 630/2006 dated 23.3.2006 in the case of M/s. Vijaya Steel Limited that the Tribunal following the earlier citations noted supra has set aside the demand on the ground that Finance Act 2001 has omitted the charging Section 3A. The consequences of dropping the said section have been discussed in detail in all the judgments. The amendment has not kept any saving clause, while deleting the Section, as a result the Tribunal in the cited judgment has held that the demands cannot be confirmed in the pending cases. We further find even on merit this Bench in the case of Paragon and SMM Steel Re-rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) have clearly held that when intimation regarding closure and restarting of the factory has been received in time in the office of Superintendent of Central Excise then in such a situation, the benefit of abatement cannot be denied. Therefore on both points, the issue is covered in assessee's favour. Hence, the demands are not sustainable and appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.