9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.N. SCN No.& Date Amount of Duty Demanded Period 1. V(3)DEM/546/98/223 16-2-1999 16,25,001/- 1-8-1998-31-10-1998 2. V(3)DEM/546/98/1515 31-3-1999 14,25,001/- 1-11-1998 -31-1-1999 3. V(3)DEM/230/99/3543 17-8-1999 16,25,001/- 1-4-1999-30-6-1999 4. V(3)DEM/347/99/1908 8-12-1999 16,25,001/- 1-7-1999-30-9-1999 5. V(3)DEM/38/2000/434 2-2-2000 16,25,001/- 1-10-1999-31-12-1999 6. V(3)DEM/135/2000/1225 27-4-2000 16,25,001/- 1-1-2000-31-3-2000 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the applicant is a registered unit for manufacture of MS ingots falling under tariff sub-heading 72 of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. With effect from 1-8-1998 the applicant was having induction furnace of 3.25 MT ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Original No. 80-85/ADC/2003, dated 29-7-2003 confirming the demand totalling to Rs. 95,50,006/-. Also a penalty of Rs. 95,50,006/- was imposed on the applicant and interest @ 18% p.a. up to Feb. 2000 and afterward @ 24% p.a. on the outstanding amount of duty from the first day after the last date for payment till the day of actual payment of duty was also charged. An appeal along with stay application was filed before Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Meerut-I which is pending. 3. When the case came up for admission hearing on 20-7-2004, Shri Aloke Arora Advocate, appeared for applicant and briefly narrated the facts of the case. He submitted that his client along with other assessees challenged the orders of the Commissioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the admitted duty liability. In other words according to the Advocate, no duty was payable in respect of one of the furnaces which became inoperational, vide their letter dated 24-12-1999 referred supra. 4. Nobody was present from the Revenue. However, they have given parawise comments on the application. There is no specific comment on the eligibility for admission of the applicants. 5. The Bench has perused the application filed by the applicant and has also considered both written and oral submissions, including the submissions made during the course of the hearing. 6. It appears to the Bench that the main thrust of the applicant was that due to uncertainty during the period the scheme was in operation there was lot o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 15-1-1999 of CEGAT in the case of Minakshi Castings. Prior to that there was no scope to entertain any doubt. It is seen that in the present case there are 2 SCN's namely (i) V(3)DEM/546/98/223, dated 16-2-1999 demanding Rs. 16,25,001/- and (ii)V(3)DEM/546/98/1515, dated 31-3-1999 demanding Rs. 14,25,001/- in which the periods of dispute are 1-8-1998 - 31-10-1998 and 1-11-1998 to 31-1-1999 respectively, that is before the date of the order of CEGAT in Minakshi Castings case supra. The applicant has also filed an appeal before CEGAT on 9-4-1999 that is after the date of the order of CEGAT in Minakshi Castings case, though, in this appeal, no reference has been made to the order of CEGAT in the case of Minakshi Castings. 7. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days of the receipt of this order, and furnish proof of payment to the Bench. 10. In view of the above discussion the SCN's (1) V(3)DEM/546/98/223, dated 16-2-1999 and V(3)DEM/546/98/1515, 31-3-1999 are not taken up for settlement. SCN's V3/DEM/230/99/3543, dated-17-8-1999, V(3)DEM/347/99/1908, dated 8-12-1999, V(3)DEM/38/2000/434, dated 2-2-2000 and V(3)DEM/135/2000/1225, dated 27-4-2000, are alone taken up for settlement. 11. With the passing of this order, this Bench acquires exclusive jurisdiction to perform the functions of any Central Excise Officer in so far as the case covered by the 4 SCNs in the application SA(E) No. 511/2004 is concerned, as per the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 32-I of the Act.< ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
