Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.38 seconds)Section 3 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Commr. Of Customs, Bangalore vs M/S Acer India Pvt. Ltd on 12 October, 2007
13. Mr. B. Bhattacharya, learned Additional Solicitor General of India,
appearing for the revenue, had strenuously urged that the view taken by the
High Court to the effect that once the technical parameters, as stipulated in
Rule 3(3) of the 1997 Rules, are altered in terms of Rule 4(2) of the said
Rules, resulting in reduction in the production capacity, Rule 5 cannot be
invoked, is clearly fallacious. According to the learned counsel, for the
purpose of Rule 4(2), the production capacity of the rolling mill has to be
determined under the said Rule 3(3) as there is no other rule to take care of
such a situation. It was argued that when the production capacity of a
factory is to be determined under the said Rule, Rule 5 will automatically
come into play. Relying on the clarification issued by the Board vide
Circular dated 26th February 1998, learned counsel argued that since
reference to previous year's production in Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules is to the
actual production of the mill and does not relate to the technical parameters
of the machinery, the actual production of the year 1996-97 would be
1
relevant for determining the current year's duty liability under Section 3A of
the Act, even when parameters of the machinery are altered. It was thus,
asserted that since re-determination of capacity of production under Rule
4(2) has to be done by the formulae prescribed in the said Rule 3(3), the
provisions of Rule 5 cannot be disregarded. Commending us to the decision
of this Court in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Vs. ACER India (P)
Ltd.1, learned counsel contended that the Rules relating to determination of
capacity of production have to be strictly construed.
Sawanmal Shibumal Steel Rolling Mills vs C.C.E. on 12 December, 2000
14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, led by Mr. Balbir
Singh, submitted that when there is any change in the parameters of a rolling
mill, which are different from the rolling mill in the financial year 1996-97,
Rule 5 has no application. Highlighting the fact that the decision of a Full
Bench of the Tribunal in Sawanmal Shibumal Steel Rolling Mills Vs.
C.C.E., Chandigarh-I2 as also the decision of the High Court of Karnataka
in Commr. of Central Excise, Belgaum Vs. Bellary Steel Rolling Mills3,
wherein it has been held that when there are alterations in the parameters,
referred to in Rule 3(3) of the 1997 Rules, Rule 5 does not apply, learned
1 (2008) 1 SCC 382
2 2001 (127) E.L.T. 46 (Tri.-LB)
3 2009 (245) E.L.T. 114 (Kar)
1
counsel stressed that the revenue having accepted these decisions on the very
same point, it is debarred from taking a contrary stand in these appeals.
C.K. Gangadharan & Anr vs Commnr. Of Income Tax, Cochin on 21 July, 2008
In rejoinder, Mr. Bhattacharya, cited the decision of this Court in C.K.
Gangadharan & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin4 in
support of his submission that the revenue is not precluded from questioning
the correctness of the decision of the authorities below in these appeals
despite the fact that orders/decision in the afore-mentioned cases have not
been challenged.
Commissioner Of Sales Tax,Uttar ... vs The Modi Sugar Mills Ltd on 31 October, 1960
Commissioner Of Central Excise Belgaum vs M/S Bellary Steel Rolling Mills on 3 April, 2008
14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, led by Mr. Balbir
Singh, submitted that when there is any change in the parameters of a rolling
mill, which are different from the rolling mill in the financial year 1996-97,
Rule 5 has no application. Highlighting the fact that the decision of a Full
Bench of the Tribunal in Sawanmal Shibumal Steel Rolling Mills Vs.
C.C.E., Chandigarh-I2 as also the decision of the High Court of Karnataka
in Commr. of Central Excise, Belgaum Vs. Bellary Steel Rolling Mills3,
wherein it has been held that when there are alterations in the parameters,
referred to in Rule 3(3) of the 1997 Rules, Rule 5 does not apply, learned
1 (2008) 1 SCC 382
2 2001 (127) E.L.T. 46 (Tri.-LB)
3 2009 (245) E.L.T. 114 (Kar)
1
counsel stressed that the revenue having accepted these decisions on the very
same point, it is debarred from taking a contrary stand in these appeals.
1