TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducts of non-alloy steels falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were registered with the Central Excise Department for manufacturing excisable goods in the month of May, 1997. Their mill was closed from 1-8-1997 to 18-11-97, which was duly informed to the Central Excise office. From September, 1997 Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act was introduced on iron and steel products. By letter dated 17-11-97 the appellants declared various parameters of the mill for the purpose of determination of Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) and duty liability. They opted for payment of duty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. By impugned order dated 30th J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that option under Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be changed. He also submits that Rule is very clear and, therefore, the appellants are liable to pay duty from 1-9-97 even if there was no production. 5. After hearing learned D.R. and on perusal of the records, I find that Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A was introduced from September, 1997. The production in the appellants factory was closed down from 1-8-97 to 18-11-97. The appellants applied for determination of Annual Production Capacity by their letter dated 17-11-97. They opted for payment of duty under Rule 96ZP(3) on 17-11-97. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 96ZP provides that in case a manufacturer opt to pay duty liability in terms of sub-rule (3) he shall inform the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the proviso to Section 3A(2). The benefit of abatement from payment of duty for the period of closure of mills under Section 3A(2) is not the subject matter in the above mentioned decisions of the Apex Court, in fine, by following the ratio of the above mentioned tribunal s decision, we hold that the appellant is not liable to pay duty during the period of closure of factory. Though the order of the Commissioner in dropping the demand is correct, he has not given proper reasons for the same. Anyhow for reasons stated above and also in view of the decided case laws in favour of the respondents, we dismiss revenue s appeal. 6. In view of the above discussion, I find that in the present case, the appellants factory was closed during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
