9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. [Order]. These appeals have been filed against the Order (Original) No. 13/99, dated 31-3-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Hyderabad-III Commissionerate. 2. The appellants were working under the Compound Levy Scheme. The Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that they changed the parameters I from 0.32 to 0.36 without intimating the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Original Authority. 3. Shri L.N. Goyal, learned Consultant appeared for the appellants and Shri R.K. Singla, learned Jt. CDR for the Revenue. 4. The learned Consultant urged the following points :- (i) The verification of the parameter was done by the Departmental officers and based on that, the final Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) order was issued. (ii) On 13-1-98, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charge of suppression is unsustainable and demand cannot be retrospectively but only be prospectively. (v) Further relying on the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Mohinder Steels v. CCE [2002 (145) E.L.T. 290 (Tri. - LB) wherein it was held that Section 3 of the Central Excise Act and Hot Re-rolling Steel Capacity Determination Rules is a comprehensive scheme and general provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n discussed. In these circumstances, no mala fide can be attributed to the appellants. Following ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rayalseema Steel Re-Rolling Mills cited supra by the Consultant, I hold that the changed parameters can have only prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Therefore, levy of penalty is not justified. The demand of duty for the past period is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
