9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise duty under Rule 96 ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules. 2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture M.S. ingots in their induction furances installed in their factory; that induction furnace of 3 M.T. was supplied and installed by M/s. Inductotherm (India) Ltd. in 1995; that after introduction of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, the appellants on 22-8-1997 made the declaration of the capacity of furnace as 3 M.T. and also enclosed the manufacturer s invoice dated 31-3-95 with technical specifications; that the appellants were discharging their duty liability @ Rs. 5 Lakhs under Rule 96ZO(3); that subsequently the Commissioner under order dated 19-3-98 for the period from 1-9-97 to 30-9-97 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this date. In support of his contention he also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shivangi Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur, Final Order No. A-494/2000-NB dated 14-6-2000 wherein the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for determining the annual production capacity as the Appellants had withdrawn the option to pay duty in accordance with the provisions of Rule 96ZO(3) and had opted to pay duty on the basis of actual production under their letter dated 15-4-98 and 30-4-98. Regarding duty liability before 1-6-98 the learned Advocate submitted that as per the invoice issued by the supplier the capacity of the furnace is only 3 M.T.; that in respect of said furnace the capital goods credit was allowed to them o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation of production the question of its determination on the basis of actual production as detailed in Section 3A(4) of the Act does not arise. The learned Advocate for the appellants has, in view of this decision, given up the claim for redetermining of the production capacity in terms of Section 3A(4) for the period prior to 1-6-98. Accordingly the appellants have to pay the duty for the period prior to 1-6-98 on the basis of capacity of the induction furnace installed in their unit. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that the appellants have submitted a letter dated 1-6-98 requesting the Commissioner to redetermine the duty liability based on actual production in terms of Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act. The Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pacity as 3000 kgs. The learned Advocate submitted that they had availed of capital goods credit at the time of installation of the furnace in their factory. As the invoice clearly shows the capacity of the furnace in view of Rule 3 of the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, the capacity has to be determined on the basis of manufacturer s invoice or trader s invoice. It is not the case of the Revenue that the capacity of the induction furnace has been wrongly shown by the manufacturer. The learned Advocate has relied upon the decision in the case of Arihant Steel v. CCE, New Delhi, 2000 (124) E.L.T. 564 (Tribunal) = 1998 (28) RLT 231 wherein it was held that when the appellants had produced certificate from the manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
