{"id":173092,"date":"2011-03-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011"},"modified":"2016-10-23T21:42:38","modified_gmt":"2016-10-23T16:12:38","slug":"ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Hans Steel Rolling Mill vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, … on 10 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. Hans Steel Rolling Mill vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, … on 10 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: . M Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave<\/div>\n
                                                             REPORTABLE\n\n              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n               CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2715 OF 2003\n\n\n\n\n\nM\/s Hans Steel Rolling Mill                    .....Appellant\n\n\n                                 vs.\n\n\n\nCommnr. of Central Excise,                     ....Respondent\n\nChandigarh\n\n\n\n                                WITH\n\n\n\n               CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2717 OF 2003\n\n\n\n                                WITH\n\n\n\n               CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3988 OF 2003\n\n\n\n\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.\n<\/p>\n
1. The issue that falls for consideration in these appeals is, as <\/p>\n
  to whether the provisions of time limit that are contained in <\/p>\n
                                 1<\/span><\/p>\n
   Section   11A   of   the   Central   Excise   Act,   1944   (in   short   `the <\/p>\n
   Act’) are applicable to the recovery of amounts due under the <\/p>\n
   compound   levy   scheme   for   Hot-Re-rolling   mills,   under   the <\/p>\n
   Annual   Capacity   determination   Rules   1997   because <\/p>\n
   otherwise, it is a separate scheme for the collection of Central <\/p>\n
   Excise Duty for the goods manufactured in the country.\n<\/p>\n
2. In order to record a definite finding on the aforesaid issue it <\/p>\n
   would be necessary to set out certain facts leading to filing of <\/p>\n
   the present appeals.\n<\/p>\n
3. The   appellants   are   engaged   in   the   manufacture   of   iron   and <\/p>\n
   steel products falling under Chapter 72 and 73 of the Central <\/p>\n
   Excise   Tariff   Act,   1985.   During   the   period   ranging   from <\/p>\n
   01.09.1997   to   31.3.2000,   the   goods   manufactured   by   the <\/p>\n
   appellants   were   chargeable   to   Central   Excise   Duty   in   terms <\/p>\n
   of   Section   3A   of   the   Act.   As   per   the   Act,   the   duty   was <\/p>\n
   suppose to be paid on the annual production capacity of the <\/p>\n
   plant,   irrespective   of   the   actual   production.   Under   the <\/p>\n
   scheme of Section 3A, the payment of duty to be under Rule <\/p>\n
   96ZP   of   the   Central   Excise   Rules.   The   Hot-Re-rolling   Steel <\/p>\n
                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
   Mills   Annual   Capacity   Determination   Rules,   1997   were <\/p>\n
   introduced   by   notification   no.   32\/97-CE   (NT)   dated <\/p>\n
   01.08.1997,   wherein   the   manner   and   procedure   for <\/p>\n
   determination of annual capacity of rolling mill was provided.\n<\/p>\n
   On   27.04.1998,   the   Commissioner   of   Central   Excise <\/p>\n
   determined the Annual Capacity to be 3355 MT.\n<\/p>\n
4. Being   aggrieved   by   the   determination   made,   the   appellants <\/p>\n
   filed an   appeal   before   the   Customs,   Excise  &  Gold  (Control) <\/p>\n
   Appellate   Tribunal,   (in   short   `the   Tribunal’)   New   Delhi, <\/p>\n
   whereby and whereunder the Tribunal remanded the matter <\/p>\n
   back   to   the   Commissioner   for   the   re-determination   of   the <\/p>\n
   value.\n<\/p>\n
5. A   show   cause   notice   was   issued   to   the   appellants   on <\/p>\n
   03.11.1998,  contending   that  the   demand  of  the   duty   has to <\/p>\n
   be based on the capacity determination of 3355MT, for which <\/p>\n
   the recovery of duty under Section 11A of the Act amounting <\/p>\n
   to Rs 2,19,750.00 was to be made.\n<\/p>\n
                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
6. On   11.12.1998,   the   appellants   changed   the   parameters   of <\/p>\n
  their   re-rolling   mill   and   applied   for   the   re-determination   of <\/p>\n
  the annual capacity for fresh declaration in terms of Capacity <\/p>\n
  Determination   Rules.   On   31.05.1999,   the   Commissioner <\/p>\n
  passed   an   order   based   on   Rule   5   of   the   Capacity <\/p>\n
  Determination Rules stating the capacity as 1890MT. During <\/p>\n
  the   pendency   of   the   final   re-determination,   the   Central <\/p>\n
  Excise Department issued a demand notice under Section 11 <\/p>\n
  of   the   Act,   for   recovery   of   duty.   Aggrieved   by   the   same,   the <\/p>\n
  appellants   filed   a   writ   petition   before   the   Punjab   and <\/p>\n
  Haryana   High   Court,   whereby   and   whereunder   the   High <\/p>\n
  Court set aside the demand notice and directed the revenue <\/p>\n
  to re-determine the annual capacity.\n<\/p>\n
7. On   04.01.2001,   the   Commissioner   of   Central   Excise   re-\n<\/p>\n
  adjudicated   the   matter   and   determined   the   annual   capacity <\/p>\n
  of   the   period   1.09.97   to   31.3.2000   to   be   1890MT.   The <\/p>\n
  appellant   filed   an   appeal   before   the   Tribunal   against   the <\/p>\n
  same. On 08.04.2002, the larger bench of the Tribunal, held <\/p>\n
  that in case of the manufacturer operating under Compound <\/p>\n
                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
   Levy   Scheme   in   terms   of   Section   3A   of   the   Act,   and   Rule <\/p>\n
   96ZP   of   the   Central   Excise   Rules,   recovery   mechanism <\/p>\n
   provided   in   terms   of   Section   11A   of   the   Act   is   not   to   be <\/p>\n
   followed   and   hence   the   matter   was   to   be   remanded   back   to <\/p>\n
   the Commissioner for re-determination.\n<\/p>\n
8. Still   aggrieved   the   appellants   filed   the   present   appeals   on <\/p>\n
   which   we   heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the <\/p>\n
   parties, who have taken us through various orders passed by <\/p>\n
   the   different   authorities   and   also   through   other   connected <\/p>\n
   records. Having considered the same, we proceed to dispose <\/p>\n
   of   the   present   appeal   by   recording   our   reasons   for   our <\/p>\n
   conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
9. It was submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellants <\/p>\n
   that  the provisions  of Section 11A  of the  Act are mandatory <\/p>\n
   for   recovery   of   any   duty   short   levied   and   short   paid.   The <\/p>\n
   learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the <\/p>\n
   Section 11A of the Act stipulates the procedure to be followed <\/p>\n
   invariably   and   without   exception   for   recovery   of   any   duty <\/p>\n
   which   has   not   been   levied   or   not   paid   or   short   paid   or <\/p>\n
                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
   erroneously refunded. The counsel referred to sub Section (2) <\/p>\n
   of   Section   11A   of   the   Act   which   stipulated   that   the <\/p>\n
   determination   of   amount   of   duty   short   levied   etc,   from   a <\/p>\n
   person is to be made after considering  his representation in <\/p>\n
   the matter. In this case since the recovery proceedings have <\/p>\n
   been   initiated   under   Section   11   of   the   Act,   the   procedural <\/p>\n
   requirements for issuing notice, determining the amount etc, <\/p>\n
   have not been satisfied at all. The counsel further submitted <\/p>\n
   that there is no exception in the Central Excise Act or Rules <\/p>\n
   regarding the procedure of recovery.\n<\/p>\n
10. The   aforesaid   submissions   of   the   counsel   appearing   for   the <\/p>\n
   appellants were however refuted by the counsel appearing for <\/p>\n
   the respondent. The learned  counsel  for the respondent has <\/p>\n
   pointed   out   that   under   the   Compound   Levy   Scheme,   the <\/p>\n
   appellants   opted   for   the   payment   of   duty   at   compounded <\/p>\n
   rates   and   filed   declarations   furnishing   details   about   annual <\/p>\n
   capacity of production and duty payable on such capacity of <\/p>\n
   production.   Once   the   commissioner   approved   such <\/p>\n
                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
   applications, payments are to be made in terms of Rule 96ZP <\/p>\n
   of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
11.We   have   already   set   out   the   issue   which   falls   for   our <\/p>\n
   consideration in these present appeals.\n<\/p>\n
12.On   going   through   the   records   it   is   clearly   established   that <\/p>\n
   the appellants are availing the facilities under the Compound <\/p>\n
   Levy   Scheme,   which   they   themselves,   opted   for   and   filed <\/p>\n
   declarations   furnishing   details   about   annual   capacity   of <\/p>\n
   production and duty payable on such capacity of production.\n<\/p>\n
   It   has   to   be   taken   into   consideration   that   the   compounded <\/p>\n
   levy  scheme  for  collection   of  duty  based   on  annual  capacity <\/p>\n
   of  production   under  Section   3  of  the   Act  and  Hot  Re-rolling <\/p>\n
   Steel   Mills   Annual   Capacity   Determination   Rules,   1997   is   a <\/p>\n
   separate   scheme   from   the   normal   scheme   for   collection   of <\/p>\n
   central   excise   duty   on   goods   manufactured   in   the   country.\n<\/p>\n
   Under the same, Rule 96P of the Rules stipulate the method <\/p>\n
   of   payment   and   Rule   96P   contains   detailed   provision <\/p>\n
   regarding  time  and manner  of payment and  it  also contains <\/p>\n
   provisions   relating   to   payment   of   interest   and   penalty   in <\/p>\n
                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
   event of delay in payment or non-payment of dues. Thus, this <\/p>\n
   is a comprehensive scheme in itself and general provisions in <\/p>\n
   the Act and Rules are excluded.\n<\/p>\n
13. The judgments of this court in the cases of Commissioner of <\/p>\n
   C. EX & Customs v. Venus Castings (P) Ltd<\/a>  as  reported in <\/p>\n
   2000 (117) ELT 273 (SC)  and,  Union of India v. Supreme <\/p>\n
   Steels   and   General   Mills<\/a>  as  reported   in  2001   (133)   ELT <\/p>\n
   513   (SC),   has   clearly   laid   down   the   principle   that   the, <\/p>\n
   compound levy  scheme is a separate  scheme altogether  and <\/p>\n
   an assessee opting for the scheme is bound by the terms of <\/p>\n
   that particular scheme. It is settled matter now that Section <\/p>\n
   11A of the Act has no application for recovery under different <\/p>\n
   schemes.\n<\/p>\n
14. In   the   case   of  Collector   of   Central   Excise,   Jaipur   V.\n<\/p>\n
   Raghuvar   (India)   Ltd  as  reported   in  2000   (118)   ELT   311 <\/p>\n
   (SC),  this  court  has   categorically   stated   that  Section   11A   of <\/p>\n
   the   Act   is   not   an   omnibus   provision   which   stipulates <\/p>\n
   limitation for every kind of action to be taken under the Act <\/p>\n
   or Rules. An example can be drawn with the Modvat Scheme, <\/p>\n
                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
  because   even   in   that   particular   scheme,   Section   11A   of   the <\/p>\n
  Act   had   no   application   with   regard   to   time   limit   in   the <\/p>\n
  administration of that scheme.\n<\/p>\n
15.We are in agreement with the finding and decision arrived at <\/p>\n
  by the Tribunal that the importing of elements of one scheme <\/p>\n
  of   tax   administration   to   a   different   scheme   of   tax <\/p>\n
  administration   would   be   wholly   inappropriate   as   it   would <\/p>\n
  disturb   the   smooth   functioning   of   that   unique   scheme.   The <\/p>\n
  time   limit   prescribed   for   one   scheme   could   be   completely <\/p>\n
  unwarranted   for   another   scheme   and   time   limit   prescribed <\/p>\n
  under Section 11A of the Act is no exception.\n<\/p>\n
16.Accordingly, in view of the above, we find no merit in these <\/p>\n
  appeals which are dismissed herewith but without costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ……………………………………, J<\/p>\n
                                        (DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)<\/p>\n
                                      ………………………………………,J<\/p>\n
                                         (ANIL R. DAVE)  <\/p>\n
NEW DELHI;\n<\/p>\n
                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
MARCH 10, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
                   1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. Hans Steel Rolling Mill vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, … on 10 March, 2011 Author: . M Sharma Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2715 OF 2003 M\/s Hans Steel Rolling Mill …..Appellant vs. Commnr. of Central […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-173092","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Hans Steel Rolling Mill vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, ... on 10 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Hans Steel Rolling Mill vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, ... on 10 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-23T16:12:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Hans Steel Rolling Mill vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, … on 10 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-23T16:12:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1343,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Hans Steel Rolling Mill vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, ... on 10 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-23T16:12:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Hans Steel Rolling Mill vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, … on 10 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. Hans Steel Rolling Mill vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, ... on 10 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Hans Steel Rolling Mill vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, ... on 10 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-23T16:12:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Hans Steel Rolling Mill vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, … on 10 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-23T16:12:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011"},"wordCount":1343,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011","name":"M\/S. Hans Steel Rolling Mill vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, ... on 10 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-23T16:12:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hans-steel-rolling-mill-vs-commnr-of-central-excise-on-10-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Hans Steel Rolling Mill vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, … on 10 March, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173092","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=173092"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173092\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173092"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173092"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173092"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}