1999 (7) TMI 134

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri S. Srivastava, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Vice President]. -  Briefly stated facts of this case are as follows :- 1.1 The appellants herein are manufacturers of re-rolled iron and steel products and opted to pay compounded levy in terms of Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They started paying duty on that basis from 1-9-1997. At the end....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r denial of redetermination of duty liability under Section 3A(4) is not sustainable in view of Tribunal's judgment in the case of Minakshi Castings and Inder Steels P. Ltd. reported in 1999 (32) RLT 82 as also in view of Tribunal's judgment in the case of Prem Castings v. C.C.E. vide Final Order No. A/425/99-NB (DB), dated 3-6-1999 in which the present Counsel had appeared. The said judgment in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ey will have to pay duty on the basis of Rule 96ZP(1) for the current period i.e. for the period subsequent to 31-3-1998. 3.1 In his rejoinder, learned Advocate Shri Alok Arora points out that the period of the appeal before the Tribunal is only from 1-9-1997 to 31-3-1998. The argument of the learned JDR for the Revenue relates to the period subsequent to 31-3-1998 and is, therefore, beyon....