9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the Appellant) and the other appeal No. E/4398/04 has been filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent). 1.1 The facts giving rise to filing of these appeals are, in brief, as under :- The Appellant are manufacturers of embroidery fabrics chargeable to Central Excise Duty under Heading No. 5805.19 of the Tariff. The Appellant were availing of the compounded scheme for payment of duty on embroidery fabrics manufactured by them as prescribed under Section E-IX of Chapter V of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules 96 ZH to 96 ZM). The Appellant received some duty paid capital goods in their factory during April-May 1998 period and took capital goods Cenvat credit of Rs. 40,16,000/- in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he penalty to Rs. 2,000/- on the ground that the violation of the provisions of Rule 96ZH to 96ZK are punishable only under Rule 96ZL under which the maximum penalty imposable is Rs. 2,000/-. While, the Appellant have challenged this order of Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to upholding of the duty demand, the Respondent have challenged the impugned order reducing the penalty to Rs. 2,000/-. 2. Heard both the sides. 2.1 Shri Vipin Bali, C.A., the learned Counsel for the Appellant had made written as well as oral arguments, wherein it was pleaded that the specific provision debarring the manufacturers of embroidery operating under compounded levy scheme prescribed under Rule 96ZH to Rule 96ZM from availing Cenvat credit facility was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Departmental Representative pleaded that the amendment made to Rule 96ZI vide Notification No. 15/98-C.E. (N.T.) is of clarificatory nature, that from the provisions of sub-rule, 3, of Rule 96ZI read with Rule 96ZJ it is clear that duty liability was to be discharged by the Appellant in cash i.e. by debit in the current account being maintained by them in which credit could be taken by them only by cash deposit in the Government treasury, that on this very issue, the Tribunal in the case of United Leasing and Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-III reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 565 (Tribunal) and also in the case of Saurer Embroidery Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Gurgaon reported in 2007 (208) E.L.T. 568 (Tri. - Del.) has held that from a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t entitled to the extent of Rs. 16,56,000/- for discharging duty liability during September 1998, to February, 1999 period is incorrect and, therefore, this duty would be recoverable from them. Since the show cause notice for demanding this duty has been issued on 8-3-99, the same is within time. In view of this, we find no infirmity in the impugned order upholding the confirmation of the duty demand. 4. As regards, the imposition of penalty on the Appellant, since Rule 96ZH to Rule 96 ZM in Section E-IX of Chapter V of the Central Excise Rules are a self contained code regarding compounded levy scheme for manufacturers of embroidery and since the maximum penalty prescribed under Rule 96ZL for violation of the provisions is Rs. 2,000/-, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
