TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (12) TMI 467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er :- 1.1 The appellant firm has got two Induction Furnaces each of capacity of 3 M.Ts. at its factory. 1.2 On 18-8-1997, the appellants exercised its option to avail the Scheme laid down under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A letter was addressed to the Commissioner stating that out of the total two furnaces, 20% of the installed capacity would be used for non-notified goods and the balance 80% for notified goods. Inasmuch as Rule 96ZO(3) requires the assessee to pay a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakhs per month in two equal instalments for furnace-capacity of 3 M.Ts., the appellants paid an amount of Rs. 8.00 lakh in August, 1997 (80% of Rs. 10.00 lakh in the two furnaces) towards its obligation to pay the duty in ter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said period, the appellants also filed separate RT-12 returns for notified goods and non-notified goods, as per the direction of its jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities. 1.7 The above factum of use of one furnace for notified goods and of the other for non-notified goods, was brought to the notice of the Commissioner, vide their subsequent letters dated 8-9-1997 and 19-1-1998. However, the Commissioner vide his another Order dated 23-3-1998 finally determined the annual capacity of production, which the appellants represented against. 1.8 Subsequently, the appellants were issued show cause notices alleging that the appellants ought to have discharged their duty-liability at the rate of Rs. 5.00 lakh per month per furn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st the appellants by raising demands of duties in respect of both the furnaces under the provisions of Rule 96ZO(3), is not justifiable. 4. We find lot of force in the above statement of the learned Advocate. Compounded Levy Scheme is applicable only for the notified goods under the said Scheme. The same cannot be extended to the other items which are not covered by the said Scheme. Inasmuch as the appellants were manufacturing alloy steel as also not non-alloy steel i.e. notified goods and non-notified goods, the provisions of Rule 96ZO(3) would be applicable only in respect of notified goods and not in respect of non-notified goods. Now the question to be decided is as to whether one furnace was being exclusively used for the manu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctice they adopted from November, 1997 onwards. The same were being taken note of by the Superintendent. Samples were also being drawn and sent for testing. In fact, the Central Excise Authorities vide their letter dated 26-5-1999, also took a view that in respect of furnace exclusively dedicated for manufacture of alloy steel, the appellants would have to obtain a separate Registration Certificate. However, on the clarifications given by the appellants, the matter was not proceeded against. This only establishes the factum of use of two different furnaces for two different purposes. As such, we fully agree with the learned Advocate that their liability to pay duty under the provisions of Rule 96ZO(3) would be restricted to only that furnac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arged duty-liability under the Compounded Levy Scheme by paying duty of Rs. 8.00 lakh, whereas the same was payable on ad valorem basis, inasmuch as relevant date for coming into existence of the Compounded Levy Scheme was with effect from 1-9-1997. In this connection, Shri Bagaria, learned Advocate has drawn our attention to the Circular dated 30-8-1997 issued by the Ministry of Finance clarifying the position. Referring to para 5 of the said Circular, which is to the effect that the goods manufactured during the month of August, 1997, can be cleared on a lump-sum payment of Excise Duty, he submits that in the case of goods lying in stock on 31-7-1997 and cleared subsequently, no further duty-liability would evolve upon the appellants. Ina....