9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case is that appellant engaged in the manufacture of the excisable goods, hot rerolled products falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were following the procedure under Rule 96 ZP of the erstwhile Central Excise, Rules, 1944. As per their declaration filed in terms of sub-rule 3(1) of Rule 3 of Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997(HRMACD Rules, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tendent issued three show cause notice to the appellants(1) on 26-4-1999 demanding duty of Rs. 4,34,000/- show paid during 1/98 to 4/98, (2) on 27-11-1998 demanding duty of Rs. 6,51,600/- short paid during 5/98 to 10/98 and (3) on 9-2-1999. The Dy. Commissioner decided the three show cause notices by passing order in original wherein he dropped the whole of the demand notices dated 27-11-1998 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding change of parameter of Re-rolling mill vide their letter dated 17-12-1997 and 1-4-1998, wherein they have claimed that change of parameter will be effective from 1-1-1998. The appellant started paying duty on the change of parameter w.e.f. 1-1-1998 therefore regarding the change in the annual production capacity, entire fact was in the knowledge of the department therefore, if at all any dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of duty as per the revised capacity was declared. With this fact department was well aware that appellant for paying duty on the revised capacity w.e.f. 1-1-1998, therefore I do not see any suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. The normal period for demand was available to the Revenue is only six months at the relevant time, whereas show cause notice for the period January, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
