9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of duty under Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZQ of Central Excise Rules, 1944 under compounded levy scheme. The Commissioner vide order-in-original No. 58/Comm/Tech/ Processor/99, dated 2-6-1999 had fixed their monthly duty liability on their annual capacity of production as Rs. 4,00,000/- per month and the appellant had discharged duty liability accordingly. However, a show cause notice dated 4-8-1999 was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why the compounded levy scheme facility should not be withdrawn and why the duty should not be charged on the basis of the actual production under Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 7-6-2000 confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be admissible and directed the Commissioner to re-quantify the amount of duty demand. 1.2 In third round of adjudication the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 18-7-2003 re-quantified the duty demand by allowing the Modvat benefit, but restricted the quantification of duty for the period from January 1999 to June 1999 and did not adjust the excess duty paid in subsequent month. He also did not allow the cum duty benefit. 1.3 The matter came back to the Tribunal again and the Tribunal vide final order dated 3-8-2004 [2004 (177) E.L.T. 975 (Tri. - Del.)] remanded the matter to the Commissioner with directions to allow cum duty benefit. 1.4 In fourth round of adjudication, the Commissioner vide de novo adjudication ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inally the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 7-6-2000 withdrew the facility of compounded levy scheme and ordered levy of duty on the basis of actual clearances. In the fourth round of adjudication vide order-in-original dated 29-10-2004, the Commissioner as per the earlier orders of the Tribunal, has permitted the Modvat credit and also has given the cum duty benefit. The only point of dispute which remains in that according to the appellant, since even after June 1999 they had continued to pay duty at compounded rate till it was withdrawn in June 2000 and since during July 1999 to November 1999 period, the duty paid by them at compounded rate was more than the duty liability on the basis of their actual clearances, the excess duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
