9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power cut imposed by APSEB. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO reads as follows : "Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in these rules, if a manufacturer having a total furnace capacity of 3 metric tonnes installed in his factory so desires, he may, in the beginning of each month from 1st day of August, 1997 to the 31st day of March, 1998 or any other financial year, as the case may be, and latest by the tenth of each month, pay a sum of rupees five lakhs and the amount so paid shall be deemed to be full and final discharge of his duty liability for the period from the 1st day of August, 1997 to the 31st day of March, 1998, or any other financial year, as the case may be, subject to the condition that the manufacturer shall not avail of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich we are concerned sub-rule (1) lays down that manufacturer of non-alloy steel ingots and billets shall debit the amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 750/- per Mt. At the time of clearance from his factory in the account current maintained by him under Rule 173G. The manner of calculation of duty liability is then set out. The total amount of duty liability for the period 1st August, 1997 to 31-3-1998 is laid down as follows : A manufacturer shall pay a total amount calculated at the(a) rate of Rs. 750 per metric tonne on capacity of production of his factory for the period from 1st day of August, 1997 to the 31st day of March, 1998, as determined under the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. This amount shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Central Excise. The communication sent by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of India says that the rates of duty applicable to the Units governed by Section 3A have been fixed "taking into account all aspects" and therefore, it is not possible to accede to the petitioners' request. The Commissioner informed the petitioner that there was no provision to grant abatement of duty on account of power cuts as such abatement can only be given under Rule 96ZO(2). Thereafter, the present writ petitions were filed. 6.We are of the view that there is no valid ground to assail the validity of sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO. Sub-rule (3) has been framed for the facility of the assessees. It is left to the volition and option of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes the benefit under the proviso to sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of Section 3A as laid down in express and categorical terms by sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners ignores the crucial point that payment of duty as per sub-rule (3) is not compulsive, but is only optional. We, therefore, fail to see how the assessee could challenge the same, more so after he voluntarily opted for the scheme. In fact, we are inclined to think that the lumpsum duty on compounded basis would be much less than the duty payable with reference to capacity of production and that is why the petitioners opted for the same. 7.The stand taken by the Commissioner, Central Excise that there is no provision for abatement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
