TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of original authority no specific discussion was found regarding date declaration or reason for confirmation of demand for the period prior to 1.1.1999. On appeal in the impugned order also no specific findings were recorded on these. The demands in show cause notices relating to the period prior to February, 1999 were issued on the ground that declaration was not filed by the appellant under Rule 96ZP. Since, the declaration dated 17.7.1998 filed by the appellant is not disputed, the duty liability has to be accordingly arrived at - The demands of duty made without reference to such declaration will not survive. - duty liability for this period is to be as per the declaration - Appeal disposed of. - Appeal No. E/1413 AND 1468/2006-EX[DB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the appellant on 17/7/1998 were not on record and as such duty liability has to be determined under Rule 96 ZP (1), i.e., @ 400 per metric tonnes. The remaining two notices were based on annual capacity fixed by the Commissioner for applying @ 400 per metric tones. The demands were decided by the original authority and the same were confirmed with equal penalty. The appellant filed further appeal and the ld. Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the order of the original authority and remanded the matter back to de-novo consideration. The original authority again confirmed the demand with equal penalty under Rule 96 ZP and also penalty of ₹ 60,000/- under Rule 173Q. The appellants went on appeal to Commissioner (appeals) who vide ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inance (No.2) Act, 2009, there is no bar in continuing the proceedings notwithstanding the omission of Section 3(A). He also relied on the Hon ble Madras High Court s order in the case of Triveni Alloys Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2014 (306) ELT 617 Mad. The Hon ble Madras High Court after detailed discussion and taking into consideration the provisions of The Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 held that the omission of section 3 (A) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is not a bar for continuing the proceedings. 5. Heard both the sides and examined the appeal on records. 6. Regarding the appellant s contention of continuation of proceedings after omission of section 3 (A) it is clear that the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Triveni L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
