9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vis-a-vis Rule 96ZO(3) of the Rules. Therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The learned Counsel has contended that the Commissioner of Central Excise, has travelled beyond the scope of the remand order, dated 7-1-2002 passed by the Tribunal vide which he was directed to determine the duty liability of the appellants under Section 3A(4) of the Act by taking into consideration their dates of the options, but he has not so done and rather held them liable to pay duty in terms of Rule 96ZO(3) of the Rules. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 3. Learned DR on the other hand has reiterated the correctness of the impugned orders by contending that the options exercised by the appellants were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner has totally gone beyond the scope of the remand order and reiterated the earlier order dated 31-7-2001 which was set aside the by the Tribunal. He had rejected the options given by appellant No. (1) vide letters dated 23-3-98, 7-5-99, by appellant No. 2 through letter dated 1-12-97 which was even repeated on 31-3-98. Similarly, the options of appellant No. 3 exercised vide letter dated 18-6-98 and later on again repeated by letter dated 23-4-99 and of appellant No. 4 vide letters, dated 30-3-98, which was repeated by them in their letter, dated 7-5-99, to pay duty on actual production basis, had been also declined by him. The submission of these options letters, by the appellants, was not disputed before the Tribunal while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty on actual production basis u/s 3A(4). Rather the perusal of the Circular shows that manufacturer had been permitted to exercise the option for discharge of duty u/s 3A(4) of the Act after opting out of Rule 96ZO(3) of the Rules. Para 15 of the said Circular to which learned SDR has made reference specifically, only clarifies that sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO is optional and the assessee who did not wish to opt for this rule, was required to pay duty at the rate of Rs. 750/- PMT at the time of clearance subject to their total duty liability being as mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 96ZO. This Circular does not in any manner advance the case of Revenue for debarring the appellants from opting to discharge the duty on actual production b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as earlier laid down by the Apex Court in C.C.E. v. Venus Castings Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal in the remand order, dated 7-1-2002 after referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Supreme General Steel Mills, directed the Commissioner to re-determine the duty liability of the appellants under Section 3A(4) by taking into consideration their dates of options. He could not re-open the entire matter again and come to the conclusion that their options were not proper and they were not entitled to the benefit of Section 3A(4) of the Act. He has obviously travelled beyond the scope of remand order, rendering his impugned orders illegal. 7. In the light of discussion made above, the impugned orders in all the appeals cannot be legally sustain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
