Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2002 (12) TMI 484

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Complex Pvt. Ltd. 2. Shri Atul Dixit, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that respondents manufactured non-alloy steel ingots in respect of which they opted to avail the abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that as the respondents were having a furnace of     3 MT they were required to pay Central Excise duty of Rs. 5 lakhs per month as full and final despatch of their duty liability; that during the month of August, 1998 and in September, 1998 the respondents instead of paying Rs. 5 lakhs each month, paid only Rs. 3.75 lakhs each month; that as the duty was short-paid, a show cause notice dated 26-2-99 was issued to them for demanding the differential duty; t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the Board's Circular No. 485/51/99-CX, dated 15-9-99 which has been relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order is not relevant as the said circular is in respect of stenters and not in respect of induction furnace; that accordingly the decision in the case of Karamyogi Dyeing Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, 2001 (136) E.L.T. 639 (Tri.) is also not relevant as the appellants therein were the processors of textile fabrics. 3. Opposing the appeal Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate, submitted that Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act provides that the duty shall be levied at such rates as the Central Government may by notification specify and collected in such manner as may be prescribed;....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of duty and the manner of payment of duty in respect of goods notified under Section 3A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The proviso to sub-section (3) provides for the abatement of the duty if any factory did not produce the notified goods during any continuous period of not less than 7 days subject to the conditions prescribed. The conditions have been prescribed under Rule 96ZO(2) which require the manufacturer to notify in writing about the closure to the Assistant Commissioner with a copy to the Superintendent either prior to date of closure or on the date of closure along  with the closing balance of stock and reading of the electric meter. The manufacturer when he starts production again has to inform in writing about the starting ....