Full Judgment
2. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of ingots/billets of non-alloy steel. The goods manufactured by them being notified goods, they were required to pay the duty under the compound levy scheme. The annual capacity of their furnace was determined by the Commissioner vide order dated 29.9.1997 at 9600 MT for the purpose of discharging the duty. They were accordingly required to deposit the duty of Rs. 5 lakh per month under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Rules. Having failed to discharge the duty, accordingly, the demand was raised from them of the differential duty through a show cause notice wherein penalty was also proposed to be imposed on them. After getting their reply and affording them personal hearing, the Joint Commissioner through the Order-in-Original confirmed the duty for the period 1.4.1998 to 30.9.1998 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 4 lakh on them.
3. The respondents thereafter went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who disposed of their appeals by holding that since the respondents had already deposited for the month of April 1998, Rs. 378082 and Rs. 2,70,000 for May 1998, they would further deposit only Rs. 1,21,918 for the month of April 1998 and Rs. 2,30,000 for the month of May 1998 respectively alongwith interest in terms of the order of the Tribunal dated 28.2.2001. For the period from 1.6.1998 onwards, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had ordered that the duty demand would be re-calculated and communicated to the respondents in terms of the Commissioner's order to be passed in terms of the direction given by the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 28.2.2001.
4. We have heard both sides and gone through the record. So far as the demand for the period 1.4.1998 to 31.5.1998 is concerned, the same has not been disputed by the Revenue. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for that demand and period, is perfectly valid as per the Department.
5. However, for the period 1.6.1998 onwards, the direction given by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been challenged by the Department on the ground that the Tribunal's Final Order dated 28.2.2001 on the basis of which the Commissioner has to pass an order, had been challenged by the Department before the Apex Court and as such the said order of the Tribunal being sub judice, could not be ordered to be followed, by the Commissioner (Appeals). But we are unable to subscribe to this plea of the Department. It has not been disputed before us that the said order of the Tribunal vide which the case was sent back to the Commissioner for redetermination of duty, had not been stayed by the Apex Court nor that order has been altered/modified or reversed in any manner.
Therefore, the Commissioner has to pass a fresh order in terms of the direction given by the Tribunal in the said order. Through the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has, therefore, rightly ordered that the duty demand would be recalculated and communicated to the respondents on the passing of order by the Commissioner. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order committed by the Commissioner (Appeals) so as to call for any interference therein.
However, we would like to give direction to the Commissioner concerned to decide the case afresh in terms of the above-said Tribunal's order, so that the Department is able to raise the demand accordingly, if any, made out against the respondents. The appeals of the Revenue stand disposed of accordingly.