2000 (8) TMI 438

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pacity of induction furnace for the purpose of charging the Central Excise duty under Rule 96 ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules. 2.  Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture M.S. ingots in their induction furances installed in their factory; that induction furnace of 3 M.T. was supplied and installed by M/s. Inductotherm (India) Ltd. in 1995; that after introduction of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, the appellants on 22-8-1997 made the declaration of the capacity of furnace as 3 M.T. and also enclosed the manufacturer's invoice dated 31-3-95 with technical specifications; that the appellants were discharging their duty liability @ Rs. 5 Lakhs under Rule 96ZO(3); that subsequently the Comm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uest for redetermination of their capacity on the basis of actual production on this date. In support of his contention he also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shivangi Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur, Final Order No. A-494/2000-NB dated 14-6-2000 wherein the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for determining the annual production capacity as the Appellants had withdrawn the option to pay duty in accordance with the provisions of Rule 96ZO(3) and had opted to pay duty on the basis of actual production under their letter dated 15-4-98 and 30-4-98. Regarding duty liability before 1-6-98 the learned Advocate submitted that as per the invoice issued by the supplier the capacity of the furnace is only 3 M.T.;....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue as the procedure adopted obviates determination of production. In the absence of determination of production the question of its determination on the basis of actual production as detailed in Section 3A(4) of the Act does not arise." The learned Advocate for the appellants has, in view of this decision, given up the claim for redetermining of the production capacity in terms of Section 3A(4) for the period prior to 1-6-98. Accordingly the appellants have to pay the duty for the period prior to 1-6-98 on the basis of capacity of the induction furnace installed in their unit. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that the appellants have submitted a letter dated 1-6-98 requesting the Commissioner to redetermine the duty liability based o....