2000 (7) TMI 739

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....K. Roy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard Shri S.K. Roychowdhury, ld. advocate from the appellants and considered the appeal and the written submissions made and heard Shri R.K. Roy, Departmental Representative and after considering the same, I find - (a) The appellant engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy Steel Ingots were allegedly brought under compounded levy scheme w.e.f. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gust & September 1997 respectively amounting to Rs. 8,51,692/- & 11,64,564/-, and asked to show-cause why interest should not be demanded and penalty imposed. (b) The A.C. found that (i) the clearance of 1787.965 M.T. includes the quantity of 37.025 M.T. as on 1-8-97 and therefore, duty liability has to be on total manufacture during August, 1997 i.e. 1781.640 which he quantified at Rs. 10,68,9....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the appellants. (c) Vide Notification 4/2000-C.E., dated 31-3-2000, duties in excess of Rs. 600/- on ingots & billets of non-alloy steel on which duty had been paid under Section 3A are not required to be paid vide powers under Section 11C vesting in the Central Government. (d) With the amendment of Notification 50/97-C.E. by Notification No. 57/97-C.E., the ingots manufactured during Augu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esent case, cannot be imposed as the Rule 96ZO itself provides for a penalty. Therefore, following Government of India's decision in the case of Sahib Sing Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J460)] wherein it was held that penalty under Rule 173Q was not correct in law since contravention of Rule 226 was punishable, thereunder, I do not find a case for imposition of penalty under Rule 17....