9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 461 - HC - Central ExciseDuty demand - Non Alloy Steel - compounded levy scheme - Whether the appellant is liable for the duty for the Financial Year 1999-2000 on the actual production or on the deemed production under Rule 96 ZO (3) - Held that - Tribunal has not considered the plea of the appellant that for the Financial Year 1999-2000 under Rule 96 ZO(3) the option has required under Sub Rule 3 of 1996 ZO has not been given by the appellant - matter is relegated only for the determination of the liability for the Financial Year 1999-2000 and not for any other year - matter remanded back.
Issues involved:
1. Liability of the appellant for duty in the Financial Year 1999-2000 under Rule 96 ZO(3). Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the liability of the appellant for duty in the Financial Year 1999-2000 under Rule 96 ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing M/S Ingots of Non Alloy Steel, had filed necessary declarations for previous financial years but contested the duty liability for the year in question. The Commissioner Central Excise had held the appellant liable for duty in 1999-2000 under Rule 96 ZO(3) due to the appellant's failure to revoke the option under the said rule. The Adjudication Authorities emphasized that the appellant had opted for duty payment under Rule 96 ZO(3) in previous years and had not informed the department of any change in subsequent years, leading to the conclusion that the provisions of Rule 96 ZO(3) applied to the financial year in question. The appellant argued that no declaration or option had been given for the year 1999-2000 under Rule 96 ZO(3), and thus, they were not liable to pay duty under that rule. The Tribunal, however, did not consider this specific aspect of the matter in its adjudication. Upon considering the submissions and the impugned order, the High Court found that the Tribunal had not addressed whether the appellant was liable for duty under Rule 96 ZO if no option had been given for the year 1999-2000. Consequently, the Court held that this aspect required reconsideration by the Tribunal, specifically for the determination of liability for the Financial Year 1999-2000 only. As a result, the appeal was allowed, the previous order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in light of the observations made by the High Court. The Tribunal was directed to expedite the decision, preferably within three months from the date of the order's presentation.
|
