LAXMI STEEL ROLLING MILLS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a bunch of 11 writ petitions, Counsel for the parties are a greed that these petitions involve identical facts and raise similar issues. These can, thus, be disposed of by a common order. Learned Counsel have referred to the factual position as emerges from the record of Civil Writ Petition No. 23 of 1999. This may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of Hot Re-rolled products of non-alloy steel. In the purported exercise of the power under Section 3A, which was inserted in the Central Excise Act, 1944 by Section 81 of the Finance Act, 1997, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I, determined the annual capacity of the petitioner-Unit as 5018-305 MT. The order was issued on April 27,1998. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed that it was liable to pay excise duty at the rate of Rs. 1,25,458/- per month. For the year 1997-98 (September, 1997 to March, 1998), the total liability was fixed at Rs. 8,78,206/-. The petitioner deposited Rs. 2,83,626/-. This left an arrear of Rs.5,94,580, vide notice dated December 21, 1998. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division Patiala, directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 5,94,580/- within five days, failing which it was threatened with action by way of attachment of the goods, stocks, plant and machinery. Aggrieved by the notice, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It has been averred that the order dated April 27, 1998, by which the petitioner's capacity had been fixed, has been set aside by the Custom Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, on June 29, 1998. Thus, the very basis for the levy and the demand does not exist. On this basis, the petitioner prays that the impugned notice is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The respondents seek the Court's permission to place on record the written statement. C.M. No. 3276 of 1999, filed by the respondents, is allowed. The written statement is taken on record.