Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2000 (9) TMI 827

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Oil obtained at Nil rate of duty was used during the shut down period from 5/90 to 5/94 for producing steam and electricity which was further used in running the equipments like turbines, generating sets, compressors, pumps, etc. On this quantity duty at the rate of Rs. 75/- per K.L was paid. 3. A show cause notice dated 28-6-1995 was issued to the appellants under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with rule 196(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 demanding duty of Rs. 10,67,785.56 i.e. at Tariff Rate on the quantity of Furnace Oil used during the shut down period from 5/90 to 5/94 invoking the provisions of five years limitation and proposing penalty under Rule 173Q (1)(d) of the Rules. 4. The Commissioner by the impugned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and accordingly, they paid duty at said concessional rate. They placed reliance in this regard on following judgments :- (i) 1996 (88) E.L.T. 314 (SC) Steel Authority of India v. Collector of Central Excise (ii) 1996 (86) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) = 1996 RLT 498 (15) (SC) Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad (iii) CEGAT s Order No. 673/96-C, dated 17-10-1996 in Appeal No. E/2387/92-C [1996 (88) E.L.T. 704 (Tribunal)] National Fertilizer Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh. (iv) 1985 (19) E.L.T. 617 (Tri.) Neyveli Lignite Corp. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras (v) CEGAT s Order No. 62/1988-C, d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... notice above. 5. Heard both sides. We have considered the submissions and the material on record and after considering the same we find :- (a) The demand made under rule 9(2) read with proviso to Section 11A(1) as made in this case cannot be ordered in the present case, since demands under rule 9(2) can only be made on contravention of rule 9(1) on removal of the said goods could be said to have taken place. Rule 9(1) provides that no excisable goods shall be removed from any place where they are produced, cleared or manufactured or any premises appurtenant thereto which may be specified by the Commissioner in this behalf, whether for consumption, export or manufacture of any other commodity in or outside such place, until the exc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates