TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (6) TMI 214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re obtain any licence/registration from the autorities. The officers visited the premises and made out a case and issued a show cause notice after completing their inquiries. The show cause notice based on the material contained therein alleged that the appellants had contravened the provisions of Rules 174, 9(1) 52A, 173B, 173F, 173G read with Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 inasmuch as they manufactured and cleared the quantity of 1702.970 MT of steel rods from during the period 1-8-83 to 1-2-85 without obtaining Central Excise licence, without maintaining statutory records and without issuing central excise gate passes and without filing classification lists and have thus rendered themselves liable to penalties under Rules 9(2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enefit under Notification No. 209/83-C.E. or any other applicable notification." And ordered for de novo consideration in light of their above observations. 2. The learned Commissioner, thereafter found : "13. The fact that the Assessees are not eligible for the benefit under Notification No. 208/83 is now a settled one and there is no confusion in this regard. The Hon'ble Tribunal remanded back the case to examine whether the assessees were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 209/83 or any other applicable Notification. 14. The Notification No. 209/83-C.E. provides the effective rate of duty for re-rolled steel products and prescribes a rate of Rs. 330/- per MT +10% SED on BED, for MS Rods. The Hon'ble Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut payment of duty during the material period. The assessees have also not followed the procedures and have violated the Central Excise Rules rendering themselves liable for penalty under Rule 173Q of C.E. Rules." And confirmed the demand of Rs. 6,18,178/- being the duty liability on the goods cleared without payment of duty under the provisions of Section 11(2) of Central Excise Act read with Proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 11A and also demanded a duty of Rs. 7,079/- under the above said provisions of the seized goods which were released provisionally and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The present appeal is against this order. 3. The grounds taken in appeal are :....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there is no bar of limitation applicable since the appellants were manufacturing and clearing the goods without obtaining any licence or following any procedure as prescribed under law, they are therefore not eligible for the benefit of proforma credit and also the penalty has been appropriately imposed. 5. After hearing both sides and considering the submissions we find : (a) The benefit of Notification No. 208/83-C.E. in the facts of this case was held to be inapplicable by CEGAT and that that order had been accepted by the appellants herein. It cannot be urged again. (b) The eligibility of the proforma credit and the limitation of the demand to a period of 6 months is required to be....