COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE Vs. DHIMAN INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Sec. 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 21.8.2014 (Annexure A -2) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") claiming the following substantial questions of law: -

(2.) The assessee was working under the compounded levy scheme during September, 1997 to March 2000 and opted to discharge their duty liability under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for brevity "the Rules") read with Sec. 3A of the Act. They failed to discharge the duty liability according to the determined annual capacity vide order dated 12.5.2000 and filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 5.1.2001 set aside the order and remanded the case back to the Commissioner for re -determination of annual capacity of production. The department filed an appeal before this Court against the order dated 5.1.2001 and this Court vide order dated 21.10.2003 dismissed the said appeal. Thereafter, the department filed Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. The Apex Court vide order dated 6.7.2001 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8345 of 2004 set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored that of the Commissioner dated 12.5.2000 and also imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/ - upon the respondent. Pursuant thereto, the respondent deposited the duty but without interest and the penalty. The Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 6.1.2012 directed the respondent to deposit the interest. The respondent filed a representation dated 19.1.2012 before the Commissioner for specific provisions of law for determination of the relevant date for the payment of interest who vide order dated 12.4.2012 (Annexure A -1) clarified that the interest is to be paid as per the provisions and the penalty was not payable as the unit had paid the duty which was payable under the third proviso to Rule 96ZP(3) of the Rules. Feeling aggrieved, the department filed an appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 21.8.2014 (Annexure A -2) dismissed the appeal in terms of judgment of this Court in Bansal Alloys & Metals Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Union of India, : 2010(260) ELT 343 (P&H). Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.