2006 (1) TMI 333 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the HRRMACD Rules based on defaulted duty payment from April 1998 to June 1998.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 27-2-2004, where the appellate authority had favored the respondents. Despite the absence of representation for the respondents, the Learned D.R. presented the case. The main issue revolved around the imposition of penalty on the respondents for defaulting in duty payment but subsequently clearing the dues. The appellate authority had granted relief to the respondents citing Notification No. 42/98, related to a levy scheme for Hot Stenter production units, not applicable to Hot Re-rolling Mills. The decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the Beauty Dyers case was mentioned, highlighting the distinction between textile processors and re-rolling mills.

The judge noted a significant difference between the present case and the Beauty Dyers case, emphasizing that the order-in-appeal did not address the merits of the current situation. Consequently, the impugned Order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for remand. The direction was given to the appellate authority to reconsider the case, giving both parties a fair opportunity to present their arguments. The appeal was allowed for remand, ensuring a fresh order based on a thorough consideration of the case's merits.