2004 (5) TMI 439

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hri S.C. Pushkarna, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. - The assessee has come up against the order passed by the Commissioner dated 23-12-2003 to the extent he has imposed penalty and demanded interest. We find the view taken by the Commissioner quite strange. 2. The Commissioner had initially determined the annual production capacity of the appellant's .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... annual capacity determined had been already paid by the assessee at the time of clearance of goods and therefore there is no question of any differential duty. After holding as above the Commissioner proceeds to find as follows : "I, however, find that in terms of Rule 96ZO(1)(I)(b) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as it existed at the relevant time, the assessee was required to pay an amount of R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ZO(1)(I) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. I also find that the assessee for the first time vide their written submission dated 8-5-2001 submitted at the time of personal hearing have claimed that their annual capacity production may be re-determined in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 3A. They are, therefore, liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum under provisions of Rule 96ZO of Central Excise R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X