Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 808 - AT - Central ExciseCompounding of duty - sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - HELD THAT:- It is seen that at the time of adjudication before the Additional Commissioner, it has never contended by the respondent-assessees that they have opted out the scheme provided under Rule 96ZO(3)(i) from 01.04.1998. The main argument taken by the respondent-assessees at the time of original adjudication was that they have filed an abatement claim for the period in dispute of the duty amounting to ₹ 23,50,000/- which was pending for consideration before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh; and therefore the demand of duty need to be reduced by this amount. It has also been admitted by the respondent-assessees that the amount of claimed abatement is reduced from the total amount, the only duty payable by them comes to ₹ 44,00,000/-. After perusal of the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is noticed that while deciding the matter, he has relied on the certain facts, which were actually not present before the Original Adjudicating Authority nor they have contended/presented before the Original Adjudicating Authority by the respondent-assessee. The Order-in-Appeal is devoid of any merits - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
|