9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y involved in the dispute and confirmed in the original proceedings is Rs. 1,17,50,066/- and the entire duty demand is accepted. 2. The applicant company manufactures MS-Ingots and was paying duty in terms of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Based on the information supplied by them the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II fixed the total installed capacity of furnace as 5 MTs and the annual capacity of production as 16,000 MTs. Accordingly, they were required to pay an amount of Rs. 8,33,333/- per month towards duty liability. The applicant had not paid the said duty from April, 1998 to March, 2000 totalling to Rs. 1,41,66,781/-. In October, 1998 officers from the depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cant company under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules. The order was remanded by the Hon ble CESTAT, Chennai vide its order dated 12-10-2001 on the ground that the Commissioner while deciding the matter relied on evidence collected behind the back of the assessee and that there was violation of principles of natural justice. At this stage when the matter was under remand, the applicant company came up for settlement. 3. The application was heard on 24-8-2005 when Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate appeared for the applicant company reiterated the facts of the case and stated that he wants settlement in respect of the duty defaulted and demanded for the period April, 1998 to March, 2000 covered by five out of six show cause notices amounting to Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o proceedings relate to the Order in Original No. 7/2001 wherein the furnace capacity and the ACP of the applicant were re-determined besides confirming the duties not paid, and the differential duty payable consequent to the re-determination of furnace capacity and the ACP. Thus, the order demanded the total amount of Rs. 1,62,96,743/-. This amount is covered by six show cause notices. The applicant wants settlement of the first five show cause notices relating to duty payable on account of furnace capacity fixed at 5.0 MTs which the department wanted to revise. The applicant wants to pursue the sixth show cause notice with the Commissioner, Central Excise during the de novo proceedings. Thus, the applicant wants settlement of part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
