SALEM STEEL INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Salem Steel Industries (appellants) have two units, one at Salem and the other at Gummidipundi. They are engaged in the manufacture of hot re -rolled products of non -alloy steel falling under various Headings in Chapter 72 of the CETA Schedule. By Notification No.33/97 -CE (NT) dated 1.8.97, the Central Government introduced a compounded levy scheme for these goods under subsection 3 of Section 3 A of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly the appellants became liable to discharge their duty liability on the basis of Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) to be determined by the jurisdictional Commissioner under the Hot Re -rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. The Government, by Notification No. 44/97 -CE (NT) dated 30.8.97, changed the date of coming -into -force of the scheme from 1.8.97 to 1.9.97. But, by that time, the appellants had already effected clearances of hot re -rolled products of non -alloy steel at the concessional rate (Rs. 300/ - per M.T) allowed by Notification No. 50/97 -CE dated 1.8.97. This benefit of concessional rate under Notification No. 50/97 -CE was available only to the goods manufactured or produced prior to 1.8.97 and cleared on or after that date. During the period of clearance of goods (August 1997), the party satisfied this condition stipulated under Notification No. 50/97 -CE (NT) as this Notification originally stood. But, much to their prejudice, the said condition came to be amended by Notification No. 57/97 -CE dated 30.8.97 and, under the amended provision, the benefit of confessional rate of duty under Notification No. 50/97 -CE ibid was applicable only to the goods manufactured or produced on or before 1.9.97 and cleared on or after that date. The effect of this amendment of Notification No. 50/97 -CE was that the appellants were rendered ineligible for concessional rate of duty on their goods cleared in the month of August, 1997. This situation was exploited by the department for raising demands of duty on the Salem and Gummidipundi units of the appellants. The relevant show -cause notices demanded duty at tariff rate on the goods on the ground that the compounded levy scheme was not applicable to the appellants for the said period (i.e. August). At Salem, the original authority confirmed this demand but did not impose any penalty and the first appellate authority sustained that decision. At Chennai, the adjudicating authority (Commissioner of Central Excise) confirmed the demand of duty on the Gummidipundi unit and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 15,000/ - Hence these appeals.

(2.) AFTER hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we find that, in August 1997, the compounded levy scheme was not in force and therefore the appellants were liable to pay duty at tariff rate in terms of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act. However, it is noticed, the Government issued Notification No.4/2000 -CE (NT) dated 31.1.2000 under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act directing that any duty of excise in excess of the duty leviable at the rate of Rs. 300/ - per M.T. should not be required to be paid in respect of hot re -rolled products of non -alloy steel manufactured in the month of August, 1997 on which duty had been paid under Section 3A. In otherwords, the duty liability of the appellants and similar manufacturers should be restricted to Rs. 300/ - per M.T. for the month of August, 1997. The adjudicating authorities at Chennai and Salem, therefore, restricted the demand of duty to Rs. 300/ - per M.T. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we find that there is hardly any valid challenge against this demand. Ld. Counsel, however, has prayed for vacating the penalty imposed by ld. Commissioner at Chennai. It is submitted that the appellants were paying duty during August 1997 under a bona fide belief that they were still covered by the compounded levy scheme introduced by the Government under Notification No. 33/97 dated 1.8.97. The contra situation was created, all of a sudden, on 30.8.97 when the amending Notification which changed the date of coming -into -force of the scheme to 1.9.97 came to be issued. We find substance in this plea of bona fide belief. It is submitted by ld. Counsel that the appellants had no intention of evading payment of duty. We have no reason to doubt the veracity of this statement. In our considered view, no penalty should have been imposed on the appellants in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Accordingly, we affirm the adjudicating Commissioner's order with the modification that there shall be no penalty on the assessee. The appellate Commissioner's order stands affirmed.

(3.) IN the result, Appeal No. E/517/03 is partly allowed and Appeal No. E/433/04 is wholly dismissed.