The Madras High Court directed the Department to consider Representation by Steel Manufacturing Unit in the matter of the demand of interest and penalty provisions under the Central Excise Rules, 1994.
The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) and Central Excise to dispose of the representation.
In the representation, the petitioner, M/s. Sree Kaderi Ambal Steels Limited, sought to redetermine the duty for the period from 01.04.1998 to March, 2000. The petitioner is claiming to redetermine based on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise.
In Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, the case of the appellant is that it took a rolling mill on lease for the period from 1997 to 2000 and manufactured rerolled non-alloyed steel products. On 1.9.1997 the compounded levy scheme was introduced by way of insertion of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act.
The specific case is that the appellant opted for the aforesaid scheme under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules. When the lease expired, the appellant surrendered its registration certificate on 1.6.2000. As stated hereinabove, on 19.8.2005 the impugned notice was issued to the appellant demanding interest for delayed payment of duty for the period 1997 to 2000.
The Supreme Court in the above-referred case decided that “The interest and penalty provisions under the Rules 96ZO, ZP, and ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 are invalid for the reasons assigned in the judgment. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed to the extent indicated above.”
A Single Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice S Srimathy observed that “The petitioner is a steel manufacturing unit and is covered by the said judgment. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking to consider and redetermine based on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, this Court is directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation in the light of the aforesaid judgment within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
