9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read with Rule 9(2), 173Q(1) and 173G(1), demanded interest and imposed a penalty on J.P. Jindal, Managing Director. These appeals are by the manufacturer and J.P. Jindal. 2. The contention of common counsel for the appellant on behalf of the manufacturer are as follows. The appellant's factory was not in production from 9-5-1997 to 6-10-1997. It had stopped producing any goods from 28-1-1998. Therefore, that part of the Commissioner's order demanding duty on the production from 9-5-1997 to 6-10-1997 and from 28-1-1998 to 31-3-1998 cannot be sustained. For the remaining period the appellant ran only one of its two furnaces. Therefore the duty which was payable by it under Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to agree that the demand for duty which was issued in implementation of the earlier order could now be questioned. We therefore do not find any case for the appellant regarding the duty liability on the second mill. 4. As to the period from 9-5-1997 to 10-10-1997, the Commissioner's order dated 24-4-1998 has dealt that and disallowed it on the ground that the procedure which was laid down abetment was not valid. On 9-5-1997 when the factory was finally closed, the provisions of Rule 96Z(P) were not in operation. The provision of Section 3A of the Act, by providing the scheme of compound levy were made applicable to re-rolling mills with effect from 1-9-1997. However, even if it was not covered by these provisions the appellant wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant that no penalty was imposable under Rule 96Z(P). The rule only came into enactment on 1-3-1998 subsequent to the period. We see the correctness of the point. The rule cannot be invoked for the period in which it was not in statute. However prior to this date, the provisions of Rule 173Q would apply. We do not find it possible to accept the contention of the Counsel that even prior to enactment of 96Z(P), Rule 173Q would not apply. The provisions of Section 3A of the Act which he relies upon did not provide for framing rules for imposition of penalty. These rules provided for only fixation of annual capacity or rate of duty and calculation of such duty. We do not find it possible to say that imposition of penalty for non-de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
