9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 1944. In the appellant's unit, there were two furnaces - one furnace of capacity of 3.5 M.T. and the other furnace of 1 M.T. capacity. Though the appellant informed the central excise authorities that the other furnace of capacity of 1 M.T. is non-functional and is not being operated at all, the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise vide order dated 21-1-1998 determined the annual capacity of production and the monthly duty liability based on the same by taking into account both the furnaces and accordingly, determined their capacity on provisional basis for the year 1997-98 as 14400 M.T. and on this basis, determined their duty liability as Rs. 7.5 lakhs per month. Though the appellant represented against this order of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . capacity, only one 3.5 M.T. capacity was being operated and the other furnace was non-functional and had not been operated, that from the very beginning, the appellant had informed the Department that they were operating only one furnace of 3.5 M.T. capacity and the other furnace of 1 M.T. was not being operated, that this has also been taken note of in Para 2 of the Commissioner's order dated 21-1-1998 determining their annual capacity of production, and monthly duty liability based on the same on provisional basis, as in Para 2 of the Commissioner's order has clearly stated that the furnace of capacity of 1.00 M.T. was idle, that though subsequent to the order dated 21-1-1998 the appellant submitted a representation dated 20-3-1998 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... determined their duty liability on the provisional basis as Rs. 7.5 lakhs per month. Though this order was supposed to be followed by a final order and in this regard, the appellant had also submitted a representation stating that in their unit only one furnace with capacity of 3.5 M.T. is functional and the other furnace with capacity of 1.00 M.T. is non-functional, no order has been passed. Since the appellant discharged their duty liability only on the basis of one furnace of 3.5. M.T. capacity, they were directed by the department to pay the balance amount. 8. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Processors (supra) has held that since Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was omitted w.e.f. 11-5-2001 without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
