9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion under Rule 96 ZO (3). The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M/S Ingots of Non Alloy Steel on the introduction of the compounded levy scheme. The appellant filed the necessary declaration under Rule 96 ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rule for discharging the liability. It appears that a declaration was made under the Rule 96 ZO(3) vide letter dated 3rd August 1997 for the Financial Year 1997-98 and it also appears that one letter has also been issued on 1.4.1998. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is not disputing the liability of the payment of duty under Rule 96 ZO(3) for the Financial Year 1997-98 and 1998-99. The appellant is only disputing the liability of duty und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harge the duty liability under sub-rule(1) or sub-rule(3) of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Neither did they mention anything in this regard in their aforesaid letter dated 01.06.98 nor did they restrict the applicability of their choice to their option, intimated vide letter dated 01.06.98, was applicable to and in force during the subsequent financial years also. Moreover, when a choice has to be made, between two sub rules of the same Rule, for payment of duty and such choice is irrevocable during a financial year, then any change in option for subsequent financial years has to be actual clear and unambiguous. Thus I am inclined to take a view that the provisions of Rules 96 ZO(3) would apply to the financial year 1999-2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant is liable for the payment of duty under Rule 96 ZO. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that this aspect of the matter requires consideration by the Tribunal afresh. It is made clear that the matter is relegated only for the determination of the liability for the Financial Year 1999-2000 and not for any other year. In the result the appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 7.10.2005 passed in appeal no. E/2097/2003 is set aside and the matter is relegated to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in light of observation made above. Since the matter is quite old, the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
