Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Handum Iron & Steels Enterprises

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 16-2004 dated 26/07/2004 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , HYDERABAD-I ]

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 06-2007-CE dated 14/08/2007 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , HYDERABAD-I ]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE Smt. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax HYDERABAD-I NULL KENDRIYA SHULK BHAVAN, L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, - 500004 ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant(s)

KAMINI ISPAT LTD, C/O, 5-5-57-16, DARUSALAM HYDERABAD, ANHDRAPRADESH Appellant(s)

Versus

Handum Iron & Steels Enterprises Ida, Bollaram, HYDERABAD - AP Respondent(s)

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax HYDERABAD-I NULL KENDRIYA SHULK BHAVAN, L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, - 500004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri B. Venugopal, Advocate For the assessee

Dr. A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner(AR) Shri S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner(AR) For the Revenue

Date of Hearing: 10/02/2015

Date of Decision: 10/02/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE Smt. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20286-20287 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

Both the appeals, one filed by the Revenue and the other filed by the assessee, are being taken up together as the issue involved is common, though they arise out of two different orders of the lower authorities.

2. The issue is as to whether, after the omission of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 without any saving clause w.e.f. 11/05/2001, the demands against the assessees in terms of provisions of Rule 96ZO, 96ZB and 96ZQ of erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944, in respect of compound levy scheme, can continue or not. The issue stands covered by the Honble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Krishna Processors Vs. UOI [2012(280) ELT 186 (Guj.)], laying down that after the omission of Section 3A, without any saving clause, no demands can sustain against the assessee in terms of the Annual Capacity of Production Rules. The said decision of the Honble Gujarat High Court stands following in the following cases:-

a. CCE, Jaipur Vs. Alwar Processors Pvt. Ltd. [2014(308) ELT 720 (Tri. Del.)] b. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. CC,CE&ST, Raipur [2014(307) ELT 356] c. Shiv Surendra Steel Rolling Engg. Mills Vs. CCE, Ludhiana [2014(303) ELT 559 (Tri. Del.)] d. Shree Rajeshwari Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2013(290) ELT 257 (Tri. Ahmd.)]

3. Inasmuch as the issue is settled, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee with consequential relief and reject the Revenues appeal. (Order pronounced in the court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

Raja..

3