@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. In this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is aggrieved of the omission of respondent No. 1 to redetermine the
actual production of excisable goods in petitioner''s factory in terms of Section 3A(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the insistence of the
respondents for payment of duty in terms of earlier determination, which does not legally survive.
2. We have heard Shri Pankaj Bhatia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri G.R. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents.
3. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of the excisable goods i.e., M.S. Ingots/Runner Riser. Section 3A of the Act conferred power on
the Central Government to determine the excise duty on the basis of the capacity of the production in respect of such goods. Sub-section (2) of
Section 3A, authorises the Commissioner to determine the actual capacity of production and the duty payable. In terms of Section 3A(2) the
Commissioner fixed the annual production capacity at 16000 M.T. and the duty payable at Rs. 8,33,333/- per month. This was communicated to
the petitioner through a letter dated 30-9-1999, a copy of which is Annexure I to the writ petition. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said
order before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and the said appeal was allowed by the Tribunal vide order
dated 26-5-1998, whereby the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner''s order and remanded the matter back to him for afresh determination, after
providing the tax payer an opportunity to be heard in person. The Commissioner then passed a fresh order dated 11-1-1999 taking the view that
the petitioner had opted for the payment of duty at lumpsum fixed under Rule 96ZO(3) and therefore, it was not entitled to get the annual
production re-determined u/s 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act. The petitioner again went in appeal to the Tribunal and by the order dated 29-6-
1999 the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner''s order and directed him to re-determine the actual production in terms of Section 3A(4) of the Act.
The Tribunal took the view that Section 3A(4) overrides the provisions of the aforesaid rule.
4. Since the matter is pending before the Commissioner and the annual production as well as the duty payable is yet to be determined in
accordance with the provision of Section 3A(4) of the Act, the petitioner''s grievance that the respondents are insisting on the payment of duty in
accordance with the earlier determination communicated to the petitioner vide a letter dated 30-9-1999; although the said determination has been
set aside by the Tribunal and no determination is in existence. It is claimed that the respondent No. 2 visited the petitioner''s factory and threatened
to take coercive steps for the realisation of the excess excise duty. No counter affidavit proposed to be filed and after hearing the learned counsel
for the parties, we dispose of this petition finally with the following directions :-
(1) The respondent No. 1 is directed to dispose of the matter in compliance with the Tribunal order dated 29-6-1999 u/s 3A(4)of the Act within a
period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him.
(2) Till such determination, the respondents are restrained from insisting upon the petitioner for the payment of excise duty in terms of determination
communicated to the petitioner through a letter dated 30-9-1999, a copy of which is Annexure I to the writ petition.
