9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, Ludhiana while disposing the proceedings initiated consequent to the issuance of 8 show cause notices to the appellants relating to the period from September 1997 to December 1998 had confirmed the demand of duty to the tune of Rs. 17,51,656/- and had directed payment of interest thereon and had also imposed equal amount of penalty in terms of proviso to Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The proceedings were initiated consequent to the issuance of 8 show cause notices, dated 23rd July 1998 for the period of September 1997 and October 1997 demanding the duty to the tune of Rs. 2,33,333/-, dated 27th May 1998 for the period November 1997 and December 1997 demanding the duty to the tune of Rs. 1,53,333/-, dated 19th of June 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... September 1997 onwards. The appellants made representation to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh on 19th March 1998 protesting against the determination of production capacity on the grounds mentioned in the representation and requested for fresh assessment of capacity of production correctly. Simultaneously the appellants also preferred writ-petition No. 4598 of 1998 before the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court which came to be disposed of taking note of the fact that the appellants had made representation to the Commissioner of Central Excise and, therefore, directing that the authority shall take appropriate decision on the said representation. Accordingly, the writ-petition was disposed off by order 31st March 1998. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ools Limited v. CCE, Ludhiana reported in 2009 (95) R.L.T. 609 (CESTAT-Del.) 4. On the other hand, it is sought to be contended on behalf of the Department that the records nowhere disclose that the proceedings in relation to the representation were ex-parte nor there was any grievance made in that regard to that effect by the appellants after receipt of letter dated 5th of August 1998 communicating the order on the said representation. He further submitted that even in the memo of appeal, there is no such ground raised by the appellants. He further submitted that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors reported in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) would apply even to the cases covered by 96ZO(3) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of 96ZO(3) was opted by the appellants under protest. The submission is totally devoid of substance. Once the party has been given option, it is always for the party to decide whether to opt for particular method prescribed under law in relation to the payment of duty or not and it cannot be said that the exercise was done under protest. Very term option discloses that it is left to the choice of the party to decide about the same and depending upon its willingness the party is allowed to opt. The act being out of willingness of the party, it cannot be at the same time be termed as under protest. Even the rule under which the option was exercised clearly discloses that the assessee is allowed to opt for the particular procedure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
