2009 (8) TMI 880
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s passed under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3.  When the matter came up for hearing on 7-7-09, after hearing the learned DR for some time, the Tribunal wanted to know from the appellants the following particulars : (i) When did the respondent opted for compounded levy scheme in the matter of production, clearance of ingots and billets falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; (ii) The date of determination of annual capacity of production in the respondent's factory; (iii) What is the status of the goods which were detained in terms of order dated 7-9-2000. 4. Learned DR appearing in the matter states that, the office of Departmental Rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the goods of the respondents for recovery of duty and penalty due from them. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed the appeal which came to be dismissed on 19-5-03 on the ground of time bar. The matter was carried to this Tribunal and by order dated 30-12-03, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the appeal on merits and this is how the impugned order came to be passed. 7. The impugned order is sought to be challenged on the ground that the provisions of Rule 230 do not provide for any show cause notice and moment there was failure to pay the dues in terms of compounded levy scheme, the authorities are entitled to take appropriate action for recovery of dues. 8. Before we deal with the matter,....