ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. All these appeals arise from a common Order in Original No. 7/2001 dtd. 31.10.2001. The Department issued show Cause Notices to nine separate re-rolling and casting steel mills demanding duties which had been fixed in terms of Rule 3 and Rule 96ZO of Central Excise rules and in terms of Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 read with Sec. 3A of Central Excise Act. The Commissioner, after due consideration, has noted in Para 7 as follows : –
cause notice as contemplated vide Section 11A of the Act. As such, against the outstanding duty liability, that is to say “DUES” or arrears of revenue, no show cause notice need be issued for the reason that such arrears of revenue in law are recoverable in terms of Rule 96ZO(1)I(c) & 96ZO (1)II(c)(i) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.”
2. Ld. SDR submits that although there is a Board Circular and Larger Bench judgement rendered in the case of Mohinder Steels Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2002 (145) ELT 290 (Tri-LB) holding that Sec. 11A of Central Excise Act is not applicable, yet he would re-iterate the grounds of appeal. In the grounds of appeal, it is contended that the provisions of Sec. 11A for recovery can be invoked and the Commissioner’s findings that Sec. 11A is not invokable by issue of show cause notice is not correct in law.
3. However, Ld. Counsels submitted that the issue is no longer res-integra and the matter was placed before Larger bench in the case of Mohinder Steels Ltd. 2002 (145) ELT 290 and the Tribunal was pleased to hold the recovery of amounts due under the Compounded Levy Scheme for hot re-rolling steel mills are not covered by general time limit prescribed under Sec. 11A of Central Excise rules. it was also submitted that the Board Accepted this judgement by Circular No. 677/68/2002-CX.3 dtd. 3.12.2002. It was also submitted that the Apex court in the case of CCE, Venus Castings (P) Ltd. 2000 (117) ELT 237 (SC) and CCE Vs. Raghwar (I) Ltd 2000 (118) ELT 311 (SC) have held that Compound Levy Scheme for collection of duty based on annual capacity of production under Section 3 of Central Excise duty on goods manufactured in the factory. Therefore, the Board in terms of these judgement held that issue of show cause notice under Sec. 11A is not necessary and recovery proceedings cannot be initiated. The Counsel submits that the grounds made in the appeal was made out without taking into congnisance the Larger Bench judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Mohinder Steels Ltd (Supra).
4. On a careful consideration we find lot of force in the submissions made by Counsels. The Larger Bench has clearly held that the scheme for recovery under hot re-rolling steel mills is not covered by the general time limit prescribed under Sec. 11A of Central Excise Act. Similar findings were recorded by Apex Court in the case of Venus Castings Pvt Ltd (Supra). Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner that there is not need to initiate proceedings under 11A of the Act is just, proper and legal. The Board has also accepted the legal position. Therefore, the present appeal has been filed without taking into cognizance the Larger Bench judgment rendered in the matter. We do not find any merits in the appeals and all these appeals are rejected.