9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantity of the non-alloy steel castings as ‘notified goods’. Thus, the Appellant predominantly manufactured the ‘notified goods’, i.e. non-alloy steel castings. Thus the Appellant were manufacturing predominantly ‘notified goods’ (non-alloy steel castings) under the Compounded Levy Scheme. As such, the duty paid in respect of alloy steel castings under the Compounded Levy Scheme was in accordance with law and thus,the Commissioner’s Order is not sustainable. In favour of assessee. - E/A/360/2005 - A-731/KOL/2012 - Dated:- 19-9-2012 - Shri S.K. Gaule and Dr. D.M. Misra, JJ. Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate assisted by P. Banerjee, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S. Misra, Addl. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. [Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l.) and Shree Venkatesh Steel Ltd. v. CE, Raigad reported in 2006 (199) E.L.T. 721 (Tri.-Mum.), this Tribunal allowed the Appeal of the Appellant. The Department challenged the Tribunal s Order dated 12-8-2008 before the Hon ble High Court of Patna, and the Hon ble High Court remitted the case to this Tribunal with a direction to re-hear the matter and decide the relevant issue on merits. Accordingly, the case is taken up for disposal. 4. The contention of the learned Senior Advocate, Shri J.P. Khaitan is that they were manufacturing non-alloy steel ingots and billets in the furnace. The contention is that the word, incidentally used in the Explanation to Rule 2 of the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the classification list in this case and the same was also approved and is not disputed. Therefore, the demand which was raised on 13-9-2002, is hit by limitation of time. 7. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. The case of the Appellant is that non-alloy steel casting is ordinarily produced, whereas alloy steel is incidentally produced. Therefore, the word, incidentally in the explanation has to be interpreted in the context it is used. The explanation to Notification No. 24/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 25-7-1997 reads as follows : For removal of doubt it is hereby clarified that Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rule, 97 also apply to an Induction Furnace unit which ordinarily produces Non Alloy Steel I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. He states that in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhawani Shankar Castings Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh - 2004 (169) E.L.T. 73 (Tri.-Del) apportioning of capacity used in manufacture of non-notified goods is not permissible under the Compounded Levy Scheme. He further states that in the appellants case since the production is predominantly of the non-notified goods, they are required to pay only normal duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and not under Section 3A. The learned Counsel also states that in fact they have paid a higher amount of duty Rs. 1,84,14,286/- through P.L.A. which is more than the amount of demand of duty Rs. 1,68,43,496/- under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
