9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (8) TMI 30 - SC - Central ExciseDemand - Department alleged that the compounded levy scheme was made effective from 1-9-1997 instead of from 1-8-1997, and accordingly demand were made - Held that assessee had not adopted the said scheme and therefore demand not sustainable
Issues:
Appeal against Central Excise Duty assessment under compounded levy scheme for steel ingots manufacturing. Analysis: The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an assessee engaged in manufacturing steel ingots, alloy steel ingots, stainless steel ingots, and steel castings. The dispute arose due to the introduction of a Capacity Based Duty Scheme under Notification No. 53/97-C.E. dated 30-8-1997. The Department alleged that the compounded levy scheme was effective from 1-9-1997 instead of 1-8-1997, leading to a demand for Central Excise Duty. The assessee was accused of producing and clearing goods without paying the required duty, resulting in a demand for a substantial amount. The show cause notice issued to the assessee demanded explanations for various duty amounts, including Modvat credit reversal and penalty imposition. One of the key arguments raised by the assessee before the Tribunal was that they did not opt for the production capacity based duty scheme. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not chosen the compounded levy rate and that duty could not be charged twice based on the furnace capacity and standard rates for different steel products. The Tribunal held that the standard rate of duty would be applicable in the case of the assessee, providing relief accordingly. The revenue's counsel referred to a letter dated 7th August, 1997, where the assessee allegedly opted for the production capacity based scheme. However, upon examination of the records, it was found that no such letter existed. The Tribunal concluded that since the assessee had not opted for duty payment under the production capacity based scheme, there was no infirmity in the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with no costs incurred.
|
