9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate For the Appellant Shri P. Arul C. Durai Raj, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER PER : SULEKHA BEEVI C.S Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are registered with Central Excise department. They were engaged in manufacture of various hot rerolled products. During the material period, the appellant was working under Annual Capacity of Production scheme under Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944. In terms of Rule 3 of allied rules of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1997, the annual capacity production of the appellant was determined as 6239.194 MTs in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he period 1.4.1998 to 17.6.1998. Aggrieved, appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. Ld. Counsel Shri M.N. Bharathi, appearing for the appellant submitted that upto 31.3.1998 appellants have paid duty. On 18.06.1998, they informed the department that they have stopped production from 11.01.1998. They requested for abatement from 1.4.1998 till March 2000. As per the provisions of the Act / Rules, the original authority dropped demand for the period from 18.6.1998 till March 2000, after taking note of the fact that appellant has intimated the department with regard to non-production of goods, only on 18.6.1998. For the period 01.04.1998 to 17.06.1998 the demand was confirmed on the ground that appellant had not intimated the department bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... juncture, I would consider relevant to quote the observation of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Venus Coatings (P) Ltd. reported in 2000 (117) ELT 273 (SC). However, considering the circumstances, I would like to restrict the demand for the period from 1.4.1998 to 17.6.1998. In my opinion, the proceedings could have been avoided if the assessee had intimated the fact of stoppage of production on the very same day. As the assessee had not put forth any other points, I do not intend to go any further in the issue. Thus, it is evident that there was stoppage of production in the factory prior to 18.6.1998 even though the intimation of stoppage of production was given only on 18.06.1998. The commissioner has also observed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on on and from 1-4-1998 and the Unit is defunct since then. This has been further reiterated in the Range Officer s report, stating that they have not reopened their Unit thereafter (2003) and the Unit has incurred an accumulated loss of ₹ 4,45,97,581/- as on 31-3-2002 as per the balance sheet filed with the Income Tax Department. There is no challenge to the Range Officer s report or there is any contention raised on behalf of the department, that the finding of fact as recorded in the said report, is either false or incorrect. From a perusal of the order-in-original, it is seen that the Original Authority has recorded a finding that HT power supply was disconnected with effect from 12-6-1998; but, however, rejected the contention by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
