2004 (3) TMI 537

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellants are steel rolling mills. They were working under compounded levy scheme (scheme) for payment of duty on rolled products. They obtained permission to work under the scheme in terms of Rule 96ZA of then Central Excise Rules, 1944. Vide their letter dated 30-7-96, the appellants requested the Commissioner of Central Excise that, they would be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....igibility in the claim. 2. Refund claim of Rs. 41,250/- filed by the appellants was, however, rejected on the ground of appellant's failure, in not seeking prior permission in terms of Rule 96ZC(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 before effecting a change in the capacity. The Commissioner (Appeals) also adopted the same reasoning and the claim was rejected. Hence the instant appeal befor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....chines installed in the factory. Once the number of machines installed is accepted to be four machines as communicated in Commissioner's letter dated 10-10-96, there is no other requirement that, come in way of fixing a liability on the basis of capacity higher than the capacity ultimately accepted by the Commissioner. It is nobody case here that, the appellants had actually operated more than fou....