Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 674 - AT - Central ExciseQuantum of abatement - eligibility for pro-rata duty - correct date for re-fixation of ACP - Held that: - Compounded levy scheme for Ingots and billets was introduced in 1997 as a beneficiary scheme to simplify manner of discharging duty liability for the manufacturer of such goods and also to monitor central excise levy thereof. Just because the assessee had not intimated the fact of closure to the Commissioner but has only sent the letters to the officers subordinate to him is certainly no reason to reject the same - on both law and equity, it is not just and fair to continue to force the appellant to discharge duty liability in respect of a furnace which was totally non-functional and closed to levy excise duty on production that never came into existence - the denial of re-fixation of ACP w.e.f. 15.08.1998 is unreasonable and unsustainable, for which reason that part of the order is set aside. Pro-rata fixation of duty liability - Held that: - the second furnace [1570] had been out of service and non-functional from 06.03.1998 to 15.07.1998, which has also been acknowledged by the Commissioner - the appellants will be eligible to discharge duty liability for that period, on pro-rata basis, as per the proviso to Rule 96 ZO (3) of the erstwhile Rules read with Rule 4 of the Induction Rules. With regard to interest and penal liabilities, it is seen that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015 (11) TMI 1172 - SUPREME COURT], where the provision for interest and mandatory penalty under these Rules had been held ultra vires by the Hon’ble Apex Court - there cannot be any interest and penalty on the appellants. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|