9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Steel in their Hot Rolling Mill; that on introduction of Compound Levy Scheme w.e.f. 1-9-97 they filed declaration under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the Commissioner, Central Excise, determined their Annual Capacity of Production as 2,572.864 M.Ts. with duty liability of Rs. 32,126/- per month; that the Appellants paid the said duty from 1-9-97 to 31-3-98; that the Deputy Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 362 to 367/2000, dated 29-12-2000, confirmed the demand of duty for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also under the impugned Order has rejected their appeal holding that as the Appellants had not raised any objection against Annual Capacity of Production fixed by the Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Annual Capacity of Production of the Appellants was determined at 2,572.864 MT by the Commissioner which has not been challenged by the Appellants at all; that in the present proceedings the Department has simply confirmed the demand of duty based on the Annual Capacity of Production determined by the Commissioner as the Appellants did not pay their duty liability during the said period; that the Adjudicating Authority has given his specific finding that the Appellants had not even requested to seek payment of duty on the basis of actual production during the period in question for which demand had been issued. He also mentioned that no abatement claim has been made by the Appellants and as such at this stage of the second appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lea of the learned Advocate that the factory of the Appellants was closed for certain period during the relevant period for which demand has been made. The decision in the case of Simran Metals Ltd. is not applicable as the facts are different. In the said matter the Appellants therein had opted initially to pay duty under Rule 96ZO(3) and subsequently under their letter dated 23-2-98 they withdrew their option and sought permission to discharge duty liability under Rule 96ZO(1) w.e.f. 1-3-98 and in view of the Supreme Court decision in UOI v. Supreme Steel and General Mills - [2001 (133) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) = 2001 (47) RLT 129 (S.C.)] they had contended that they are eligible to change the option from the next financial year i.e. 1-4-98. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
