M/S. Jai Hind Rod Mills Ltd vs Cce, Salem

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 92/2014 dated 13.02.2014, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals),Salem).

M/s. Jai Hind Rod Mills Ltd. : Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Salem : Respondent

Appearance

Shri A. Mudimannar, Adv., For the applicant

Shri L. Paneerselvam, AC (AR) For the respondent

CORAM

Honble Shri D.N, PANDA, Judicial Member Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member ]

FINAL ORDER No. 40211 / 2015

Date of Hearing/Decision: 24.02.2015

Per: D.N. Panda

Both sides agree that by the writ of Mandamus in W.P.No. 39420 -39421/2002 disposed on 11/03/2008, Honble High Court of Madras has directed Authority below to seek opinion of the Committee consisting experts from prominent institutions like IIT and REC to suggest methodology of determination of ACP to resolve the controversy. For convenience of reading para-30 of the order of Honble High Court is reproduced below:-

30. Pleadings disclose that the then Commissioner of the Central Excise, had already requested Professors, Mr. L. Vijayaraghavan and Dr. K.S. Pandey, to inform the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of the Central Excise (Tech.), Coimbatore to give convenient dates for conducting an inspection. Therefore, could be inferred that notwithstanding the reports of the Chartered Engineer, dated 13.04.1998 and that of the Senior Manager (Operations), Salem Steel Plant, dated 05.05.1998, the department wanted to resolve the issue and obtain a final report for the purpose of determination of ACP. When the discretion conferred on the competent authority is exercised by such authority in terms of Rules 3 (2) and (4) of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, his successor cannot suo-moto change such decision, without furnishing adequate reasons. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that although, the earlier Commissioner of Central Excise had constituted a Committee, for inspection of the manufacturing units, the said decision is not binding on the present Commissioner, cannot be countenanced. If each Commissioner of the Central Excise takes his own view of the matter to resolve the dispute, as regards, the type of the furnace used in Re-rolling Mills, then there cannot be any finality. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the opinion of the experts from prominent institutions like IIT and REC, is not going to prejudice the interest of the other parties and I am of the considered opinion, that it would resolve the dispute between the two independent experts. In these circumstances, the relief sought for by the petitioners is not contrary to the above said Rules and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the Mandamus as prayed for.

2. In view of the above direction, both sides suggest that if the appeal goes back to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, the Commissionerate shall follow the directions of the Honble High Court as above and resolve the controversy.

3. With the amity of the parties who have agreed to carry out the directions of the Honble High Court as above, dispensing the pre-deposit. Appeal is remitted back to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to pass appropriate order.

4. Appellant is entitled to the report of the expert committee for its defense as well as entitled to reasonable opportunity of hearing both on facts and law.

(Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)

(R. PERIASAMI) (D.N. PANDA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

BB

1