TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Appellant is a manufacturer of M.S. Ingots falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Appellant has also availed facility of Compounded Levy Scheme for the period 19-11-1999 to 30-11-1999. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Nanded Division issued a show cause notice to the appellant demanding duty amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Appellant submitted detailed reply and also requested for abatement as under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Deputy Commissioner, Nanded confirmed the show cause notice for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, imposed equal penalty and also imposed interest from the date of liability period till actual payment by an order dated 22-3-2004. The Assessee preferred an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er immediately after the production in his factory was stopped alongwith closing balance of the stock of ingots and billets of non-alloy steel. He is also required to inform in writing about the staring of production to the Assistant Commissioner and also the reading of the electricity meter as on the date of starting of production. Learned advocate Shri Rodge has not been able to demonstrate to us anything from the orders of the three authorities i.e. the order-in- original passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 22-3-2004, order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 6-9-2004 and the impugned order, which will demonstrate that the manufacturer had complied with the above requirements, and yet claim for abatement was not considered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the lower authorities nor do we have sufficient material to adjudicate upon the same, and therefore, such an issue cannot be considered in the present appeal wherein the challenge appears to be confined only to imposition of penalty and interest upon the excise duty that was not paid. 7. Having gone through the text of Rule 96ZO(3) third proviso of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, it is evident that the assessee is liable to pay interest as well as penalty, and therefore, the order of CESTAT by which the order-in-original was restored and after setting aside the order of Commissioner (Appeals), which had set aside the order of penalty, calls for no interference. Further, as can be seen, the wording of Rule 96ZP(3) and Rule 96ZO(3) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
