Whether adjournment allowable when Rule 5 has been challenged before the High Court in some other matters?

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1470

Case: - COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus PEPSU STEEL ROLLING MILLS

Citation: - 2013 (288) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)

Brief Facts: - The issue raised in the present appeals is whether Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 (for short, the 1997 Rules) would be attracted in a case where a manufacturer proposes to make some change in the installed machinery in terms of Rule 4(2) of the 1997 Rules. The assessee has pleaded for adjournment on the ground that the vires of Rule 5 of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 has been challenged in the High Court in some other matters. Hence, revenue has filed appeal to the supreme court.

Respondent’s Contention:- They submit that some of the assessees have now chosen to challenge the vires of Rule 5 of 1997 Rules itself in the High Court and therefore, the present appeals may be adjourned to await the decision of the High Court.

Reasoning of Judgment: -A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills, 2011 (269) E.L.T. 298 (S.C.), wherein it was held that Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules will be attracted for determination of the annual capacity of production of the factory when any change in the installed machinery or any part thereof is intimated to the Commissioner of Central Excise in terms of Rule 4(2) of the 1997 Rules.
We are unable to agree with the learned counsel, on the short ground that when such a challenge was not laid before the Tribunal and the High Court, the assessees cannot be permitted to raise the issue at this juncture.
Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the petition(s), stated to be pending before the High Court, following the decision in Doaba Steel Rolling Mills (supra), we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgments, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Decision: -Appeal allowed.

Comment:-The analogy drawn from this case is that adjournment cannot be granted only on the basis that the matter is pending before high court.

Comments

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1470

Post a Comment

Query