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 Murli Rolling Mills

2015 (6) TMI 1047 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Eligibility for abatement - sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZP - factory of the respondent was closed during the period from 28.06.1997 to 12.10.1997 - before re-start of production, the respondent on 10.10.1997 exercised option to operate under Rule 96ZP (3) - Demand of duty as determined, w.e.f. 1st September, 1997 - Held that:- it is clearly borne out from the records that the respondent had intimated the option for availing of the Scheme on 10.10.1997 under Rule 96ZP (3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r the Respondent: Shri V.K. Puri, Advocate ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY The instant appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order No.22/Sec. 3A/Commr/2009 dated 23.03.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein is engaged in the manufacture of Hot Rolled products of non-alloy steel, falling under Chapter Heading 72 of CETA-1985. Duty on the said hot rolled products is payable under Rule 96 ZP of the erstwhile Central Exc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rule 173 G of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Sub-rule (2) of the said rules stipulates that where a manufacturer does not produce the specified products during any continuous period of not less than 7 days and claim abatement under sub-section 3 of Section (3A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, such abatement will be allowed by an order, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Sub-rule (3) of the said Rule 96 ZP provides the option to be exercised by the manufacturer for payment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

operate under Rule 96 ZP (3) and, accordingly, filed the application before the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authority. 4. Pending verification of the information furnished by the respondent, vis-vis determination of annual capacity of production, the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise vide letter dated 20.10.1997, determined the annual production capacity provisionally and called upon the respondent to pay duty of ₹ 94,950/- by 10th of each month during the period 1997-1998. I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uch closure had already been intimated to the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent. The submission of the respondent in the said letter was that since their factory was closed during the above period, the respondent was eligible for abatement as provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZP. In the said letter the respondent had also informed their intention to opt for the provisions under 96ZP (3) w.e.f. 13.10.1997 of the Rules. However, the representation of the respondent dated 22.12.1997 was not cons .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5. The provisional annual capacity was finalized by the Commissioner vide order dated 23.03.2009, wherein the annual capacity of production for the period 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 was determined at ₹ 3,798 MT, which was same as earlier determined in the provisional ACP. In the said order the duty liability for the period from 01.09.1997 to 09.10.1997 was fixed at ₹ 1,62,325/- under Rule 96 ZP ( 1 & 2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, the said duty liabi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 94,950/- for each month starting from 01.09.1997, the Commissioner had become functus-officio and was precluded from again considering the matter, as has been done in the impugned order. (b) The issue whether Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 94950/- is recoverable from the party from the month of September, 1997 has already been decided by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Raipur. Thus, the administrative Commissioner is erred in re-ad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt reiterates the grounds of appeal and also submits that since the registration certificate has not been surrendered by the respondent, the duty liability is required to be discharged even during the closure of the unit. In this connection, he relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhatapara Steel Industries v/s CCE, Nagpur reported in 2006 (201) ELT 150 (Tri. Mum.) 7. Shri V.K. Puri, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the grounds of appeal in the appeal memor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted in 2008 (226) ELT 707 (Tri. - Del.). Thus, according to the ld. Advocate, in absence of an order passed under the statute, it cannot be said that Commissioner has become functus-officio and he cannot pass further order in determining the final ACP and subsequent determination of the duty liability. The submissions of the ld. Advocate with regard to the second grounds of appeal are that the Commissioner (Appeals) has only decided that he has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of the appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to pay the duty in terms of Rule 97ZQ (3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. With regard to the last ground of the appellant, the submissions of the Advocate are that the benefit of sub-rule (2) of Rule 96 ZP is available since opting for the scheme under sub-rule (3) has been exercised w.e.f. 10.10.1997 and as such, no duty is payable for the period, prior to the date of exercising of such option. 8. I have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. On perusal of the letter d .....

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