TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal No. - 171 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 7-4-2014 - Hon'ble Rajes Kumar And Hon'ble Dinesh Gupta,JJ. For the Appellant : Nishant Mishra For the Respondent : Ajay Bhanot,R. C. Shukla ORDER Heard Sri Devnath, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Amit Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. This appeal has been admitted mainly on the ground that whether the appellant is liable for the duty for the Financial Year 1999-2000 on the actual production or on the deemed production under Rule 96 ZO (3). The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M/S Ingots of Non Alloy Steel on the introduction of the compounded levy scheme. The appellant filed the nec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact of having opted for Rules 96ZO(3) on 01.06.98 as evidence by para 'C' of their defence reply dated 20.02.2002 to the Show Cause Notice dated 14.3.2001, submitted through their advocate submitted through their advocate Shri N.K. Arora. I find that the party, at no point of time, ever informed the department of its choice of the operative sub-rule of Rule 96 ZO, ibid, for duty payment in the subsequent financial years i.e. after 1998-99. In other words the party did not intimate in subsequent year whether they would discharge the duty liability under sub-rule(1) or sub-rule(3) of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Neither did they mention anything in this regard in their aforesaid letter dated 01.06.98 nor did they res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal infact has not adjudicated this aspect of the matter and the matter requires reconsideration by the tribunal. We have considered the rivals submissions and perused the impugned order of the tribunal dated 7.10.2005. We find that the Tribunal has not considered the plea of the appellant that for the Financial Year 1999-2000 under Rule 96 ZO(3) the option has required under Sub Rule 3 of 1996 ZO has not been given by the appellant. The tribunal has not adjudicated that if the option has not be given for the 1999-2000 whether the appellant is liable for the payment of duty under Rule 96 ZO. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that this aspect of the matter requires consideration by the Tribunal afr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
