2004 (4) TMI 380

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... A-152/CE/2003-SC(PB) dated 14-10-2003. 2. Briefly stated, the applicant was engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Bars falling under Tariff Heading 7214.90 of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period from 1-9-1997 to 31-3-2000, the above said goods were subject to levy of Central Excise Duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (Act, for short) read with Rule 96ZP of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules, for short). In accordance with the provisions contained in Section 3A and Rule 96ZP of the Act and Rules respectively, and based on the declarations of the applicant, the Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur-I fixed the annual capacity of production as 18,966.34 MTs, in his order C. No.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3A of the Act. He also relied on the orders passed by CEGAT in M/s. Malviya Steel Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 2002 (147) E.L.T. 563 (T) = 2002 (49) RLT 418 (CEGAT-DEL) and Digamber Foundary v. CCE, Lucknow- 2002 (150) E.L.T. 520 (T) = 2003 (55) RLT 427 (CEGAT-DEL). The representative of the Revenue submitted that once an option is exercised under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Rules, then no abatement was permissible. He sought 15 days time to give the comments with reference to the two orders of the CEGAT relied by the advocate for the applicant and on the advocate's claim of the applicability of Section 3A(2) of the Act. In response to the same the respondent has submitted a report and thereafter another hearing was held on 31-3-2004. The representative ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e registration certificate whereas in this case, the applicant has not surrendered their registration. The Revenue have placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Venus Casting (P) Ltd. - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.) = 2000 (38) RLT 1 (SC). 6. The fact of non-surrender of the registration certificate should not stand in the way so long as the fact remains that the factory was closed, as claimed by the applicant. The Revenue has not disputed the fact of closure of the factory from 18-10-1997. It is not the condition that the registration certificate must be surrendered for claiming any abatement. On the other hand, proviso to Section 3A(2) of the Act clearly allows fixation of production proportionate to ....