Sri Palaniappa Steels vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
- Case No.Appeal No.E/1365/2004
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a batch of appeals on the same question has already been decided by the Tribunal following a binding High Court decision, the Tribunal is bound by judicial discipline to follow that decision, and the present appeal may be disposed of in the absence of the appellant on the same basis. Duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for determination of Annual Capacity of Production is leviable in accordance with the Madras High Court's ruling in Triveni Alloys Ltd., and the levy is accordingly confirmed. Interest is payable on the confirmed levy where there has been a default in discharging the liability, but no penalty is imposed where the liability arose from confusion of law concerning the compounding levy.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/1365/2004
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.353/2004 CE (SLM) dt. 20.9.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem]
Sri Palaniappa Steels Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Respondent
Appearance:
None For the Appellant
Shri L. Paneerselvam, AC (AR) For the Respondent
CORAM :
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member
Date of Hearing/Decision : 30.3.2015
FINAL ORDER No.40353/2015
Per D.N. Panda
There is an adjournment application by the appellant submitting that the consultant is sick. In the absence of the appellant, record was examined. Summarily, the dispute in the present appeal is whether Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 shall be applied for determination of Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) and levy of the duty. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Triveni Alloys Ltd. Vs CESTAT Chennai - 2014 (306) ELT 617 (Mad.) has held that the levy is warranted under law. A batch of appeals on the same subject was heard by the Tribunal on 24.4.2015. Following the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Madras (supra), the levy is confirmed in those batch of appeals disposed by Final Order No.40241-40263/2015 dt. 24.2.2015. Therefore, even in the absence of the appellant, this matter can be disposed following judicial discipline as has been decided in the above final order. Accordingly, the levy is confirmed and interest shall follow on the levy if there was a default to discharge the liability. But there shall not be penalty in view of confusion of law relating to compounding levy. Appellant succeeds partly and the appeal is also allowed partly.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(R. PERIASAMI) (D.N. PANDA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
gs 2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free