9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period from 1-9-97 to 31-3-2000, the above goods were subject to levy of duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (Act, for short) read with Rule 96ZO of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules, for short). As per the provisions in the said Rules, the Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut-II had fixed the annual capacity (ACP) of the furnace installed in the factory of the applicant in his Order No. 3/IFU/final/AC/98, dated 27-3-98. As per the said order, the applicant was expected to discharge a duty liability of Rs. 9,16,667/- per month. As the applicant had either failed to discharge the duty liability within the stipulated due d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, a manufacturer who had availed of the procedure under Rule 96ZO(3) at their option, he cannot claim the benefit of determination of production capacity under Section 3A(4) of the Act. The Advocate therefore submitted that the applicant has to discharge the duty liability as per the capacity of production determined by the Commissioner. 5. In other words, the contention of the Advocate is that the Quantum of duty liability itself was in doubt, and following the ratio of the order of CEGAT in Minakshi Castings case, supra, had the Commissioner re-determined the duty liability based on actual production, which was less than the ACP fixed by the Commissioner, the duty liability would have been lesser. Whereas, after the judgment of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the SCN C. No. I-IF/BLR/10/97, dated 27-11-1998, [Settlement Application No. SA(E) 510/2004], the period of dispute being prior to the order of CEGAT, there was no room to entertain any doubt, and as such, the disclosure made in the said application cannot be said to be a fresh disclosure of duty liability, not disclosed before the jurisdictional officer. Thus, the requirement under Section 32E(1) of the Act regarding fresh disclosure of the duty liability being not found satisfied, this application cannot be allowed to proceed. The Advocate has relied on the orders passed by this Bench in Ashirwad Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd. case and Capital Ferro Alloys Ltd. In the former case, the dispute relate to the period subsequent to the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
