Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CCE, Raipur Versus M/s. Shree Ispat

2016 (3) TMI 483 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Commissioner determining duty liability for the period 1999-2000 under Rule 97ZP(1) with liability for period 1997-98 and 1998-99 was determined under Rule 96ZP(3) - Held that:- The appellant had given the notice about closure to the factory but in that notice dated 01.06.1998 intimating about closure of the mill from 30.05.1998 there was no mention about opting out of the provision of Rule 96ZP(3). Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Venus Castings (P) Ltd. (2000 (4) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT OF .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

96ZP(3) sustainable. Notice of closure cannot be read to be an option to opt out of Rule 96ZP(3). Incidentally in the wake of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 (by virtue of section 111 thereof) (The Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Kukreti Steels Ltd. Vs. CCE Meerut-1 - 2015 (9) TMI 205 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT ) held that there is no dispute that Rule 96ZO was introduced / enacted vide notification NO. G.S.R. 448(E), dated 1st August 1997. Perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 111 o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority. - Thus allow the Revenue's appeal in as much as the impugned order is modified to the extent that the duty liability for the period 1999-2000 is ordered to be fixed under the said Rule 96ZP(3). - Appeal No. E/2813/2009-EX(SM) - Final Order No. 50990/2016-EX(SM) - Dated:- 10-3-2016 - Shri R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri G.R. Singh, DR For the Respondent : None ORDER Per R. K. Singh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ermine the annual capacity at 3670 MT for 1999-2000 and fix the duty liability at ₹ 1468000 for 1999-2000 under Rule 96ZP(1) of the Central Excise Rules 1944. (iv) The assessee were accordingly required to pay the duty determined for the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 per month by tenth day of each month during the period from September 1997 to March 1999. In case of non-payment or short payment of duty, the same is ordered to be recovered alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ayment of duty, the same is ordered to be recovered alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. (vi) The assessee may claim abatement of duty for the year 1999-2000 on account of closure of the mill, if any, in accordance with law. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under: i) The respondent was engaged in the manufacture of Hot Rolled Products of Non-Alloy Steel falling under Chapter 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. ii) The goods manufactured by t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d to as the Capacity Determination Rules). This scheme was effective from 01.09.1997. iii) The Respondent, vide their letter dated 10.09.1997, exercised its option to work under Rule 96ZP(3) of the said rules and declared value of various parameters and other information of its mill, as required under the scheme. iv) The jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise issued Provisional capacity Determination order dated 29.09.1997/01.10.1997 and provisionally determined the annual capacity at 381 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ification of the mill. viii) The respondent vide their letter dated 01.06.1998, intimated about the closure of the mill from 30.05.1998. ix) The jurisdictional commissioner issued another order dated 03/07.12.1998 provisionally determining the annual capacity at 3670 MT and fixing the duty liability at ₹ 14,68,000/- for 1998-99 under Rule 96ZP (1) by applying the formula prescribed under the said Capacity Determination Rules. x) Thereafter, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, vide .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1999-2000 and fixed the duty liability at ₹ 14,68,000/- for said period under Rule 96ZP(1) of the said Rules with option to claim abatement of duty for the said period on account of closure of the Mill, if any, in accordance with law. The revenue has contended that: i) While the duty liability for the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 has been fixed under Rule 96ZP (3) the duty liability for 1999-2000 has been fixed under Rule 96ZP(1) by treating the letter of closure dated 01.06.1998 as the lette .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ity for the period 1999-2000 under Rule 96ZP(3) would come to ₹ 5,50,500/- which is less than ₹ 14,68,000/- determined by the Commissioner, the actual realization would be less than ₹ 5,50,500/- in view of the fact that the Rule 96ZP(1) allowed abatement while Rule 96ZP(3) does not allow abatement. 3. Revenue thus prayed to set aside the impugned order to the extent it extended the facility of Rule 96ZP(1) for the year 1999-2000. 4. No one was present on behalf of the responden .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mally opt out of that scheme to be eligible for the provisions of Rule 96ZP(1). I find that the appellant had given the notice about closure to the factory but in that notice dated 01.06.1998 intimating about closure of the mill from 30.05.1998 there was no mention about opting out of the provision of Rule 96ZP(3). Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Venus Castings (P) Ltd. (Supra) and Supreme Steels and General Mills (Supra) has in effect held that the manufacturer cannot opt twice during one .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version