SALEM STEEL INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court is as follows :-

(2.) MR. K. Jayachandran, learned Counsel for the petitioner would challenge the said order on the ground that under the provisions of Section 3A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which was inserted with effect from 14-5-97 by Section 81 of the Finance Act, 1997, the Commissioner of Central Excise is the competent authority to determine the annual capacity of production or such factor or factors relevant to the annual capacity of production of the factory. However, the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Technical) for Commissioner of Central Excise. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order is outside the powers of Section 3A(2) of the Act. The learned Counsel would further challenge the order that even though the petitioner had requested for inspection by experts, the Assistant Commissioner alone inspected without the insistence of experts and the Assistant Commissioner is not the expert over the same. Hence, the report of the Assistant Commissioner can not be the basis for the impugned order. In any event, the learned Counsel submitted that the report of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner was not furnished to the petitioner before the same was relied upon. Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that in the event the request of the petitioner made in letter dated 14-11-97 is accepted, the petitioner is liable to pay only lesser tax and by the impugned order, such a right to the petitioner has been taken away without giving any opportunity. Hence, the learned Counsel seeks for the quashing of the impugned order.