2004 (2) TMI 567 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against order rejecting claim for pro rata deduction in duty payable under Rule 96ZP(3).

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of Hot-rolled products of Mild Steel, contested the Commissioner's decision denying a pro rata deduction in duty payment under Rule 96ZP(3). The appellant's annual production capacity was determined, resulting in a fixed monthly duty liability. However, upon informing the Department of ceasing production, the appellant requested to pay duty on a pro rata basis only for March 2000. The Commissioner refused, citing the obligation to pay monthly duty under Rule 96ZP(3) without provision for pro rata payment.

The appellant argued that they could claim a pro rata reduction under the proviso to sub-section (2) or (3) of the Central Excise Act, referencing previous Tribunal decisions. Rule 96ZP(3) specified the monthly duty payment based on annual capacity without allowing pro rata reductions. The appellant relied on a provision allowing proportionate calculation for factories operating part of the year.

The Tribunal determined that the factory's closure before the month's end did not warrant a pro rata reduction as duty payment was due by the 10th of the month, while the closure occurred on the 22nd of March. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, dismissing the appeal due to the absence of grounds to deviate from the Commissioner's interpretation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the lack of provision for pro rata duty payment under Rule 96ZP(3) and the inapplicability of the proportionate calculation provision to the circumstances of the case.