9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order]. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Circles (Heading 76.06 of the CETA Schedule) during the material period, during which there was a special scheme for levy of duty of excise on the said goods vide Rules 96ZA to Rule 96ZGG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants had opted to work under that scheme and, accordingly, they we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 11A of the Central Excise Act and that the recoverable amount of duty is only Rs. 29,700/-. There is no other challenge. After hearing Counsel for the appellants and SDR for the department, I find that the plea of limitation raised by the appellants is not tenable inasmuch as the Tribunal s Larger Bench in the case of Mohinder Steels Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, 2002 (145) E.L.T. 290 (Tri.-LB) ruled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional Assistant Commissioner with a proposal to opt out of the above scheme. The proposal, however, was not acceptable to the department. Though this aspect does not figure in the grounds of appeal, the appellants counsel has made a mention of the same. In this connection, ld. SDR has invited my attention to the apex court s judgments in the cases of Commissioner v. Venus Castings (P) Ltd., 2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
