9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has been alleged that the respondent-assessees had opted for payment of Central Excise duty on their manufactured products under the compounding duty scheme as pronounced under sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and subsequently five show cause notices were issued demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 65,00,000/- under sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The interest and penalty provisions were also imposed on the respondent-assessees. The details of show cause notices are as under: S. No. Show Cause Notice No. & Date Amount (in Rs.) Period 1 CE20/DEMAND/ATUL/NLG/98/1275 Dated 03.03.1998 21,00,000 08/97 to 02/98 2 V-30(62)D/98/2395-97 Dated 30.09.1998 12,00,000 03/98 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng them the benefit of opting out the compounding duty scheme as provided under Rule 96ZO(3)(i) from 01.04.1998. It has been a contention of the Department that the respondent-assessees have never been opted out the compounding duty scheme and therefore the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of C.E. vs. Venus Castings Pvt Ltd - 2000 (117) ELT 273 (S.C.) and in the case of U.O.I. vs. Supreme Steels And General Mills - 2001 (133) ELT 513 (S.C.) are not relevant as the facts have mentioned by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order were not present before the Original Adjudicating Authority. It has therefore been contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in dropping the demand on flimsy grounds which were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is amount of duty be adjusted from the total amount demanded. We find that the Original Adjudicating Authority after considering the above facts and submissions of the respondent-assessees has confirmed the duty of Rs. 65,00,000/-. 6. After perusal of the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), we have noticed that while deciding the matter, he has relied on the certain facts, which were actually not present before the Original Adjudicating Authority nor they have contended/presented before the Original Adjudicating Authority by the respondent-assessee. 7. In view of the above, we find that the Order-in-Appeal is devoid of any merits and therefore, we find that the same is bad in law; accordingly, we set aside the same. 8. As a resul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
