COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT Vs. EKTA PRINTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is engaged in the manufacture of manmade fabrics. During the period March 1999 and May 1999, the appellant was required to pay duty amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month under Rule 96ZQ of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on or before 15-3-99 and 15-5 -99. On the ground that the appellant failed to pay duty amounting to Rs. 5,50,000/- and Rs. 4,02,689/- for the months of March 99 and May 99, proceedings were initiated and the Original Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 9,52,689/- and also imposed an equal amount as penalty. On appeal filed by the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the duty amount of Rs. 5,77,698/- and also imposed an equal amount of penalty.

(2.) ON an appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal, this Tribunal vide Order No. 737 -739/WZB/2003 dated 9-4-2003 allowed the appeal on the ground relying upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Beauty Dyers v. Union of India reported in [2004 (163) E.L.T. 28 (Mad.)=2002 (52) RLT 644] wherein the Honble High Court held that Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 are ultra virus of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944.

(3.) DEPARTMENT also had filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking enhancement of penalty. This ground was taken because Commissioner (Appeals) in his order had reduced the duty demand by Rs. 3,75,000/- upholding the stand taken by the appellants that they had claimed abatement of this amount and pending decision on abatement, this amount had been reduced while paying the duty for March 2009. He had relied upon the circular issued by the Board vide No. 485/51/99 -Cx dated 15-9-99. According to the Revenue, the circular is not applicable to the appellants since the circular provided that in respect of period up to February 99, the Field Officers should not insist that duty should be paid first and abatement shall be decided only later. This appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order No. A/ 1225/WZB/AHD/2007 dated 28-5-2007 on the ground that the Tribunal had already allowed the appeal filed by the party vide order dated 9-4-2003 cited above.