2005 (2) TMI 590

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al period, working under the Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Under the said scheme, they had to discharge duty liability on their products (hot re-rolled non-alloy steel products) on the basis of the annual capacity of production (ACP) to be determined by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise under the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 (for short ACD Rules). Three show-cause notices were issued by the Department demanding duty from the appellants for the period March-August '98 and July '99-Marach 2000, amounting to Rs. 11,15,783/-. Penalties were also proposed in these notices. The demand of duty was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Rs. 6,38,576/- each towards duty and penalty for the purpose of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The party did not make the deposit. Consequently, their appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F. Hence the present appeal before us. 3. Heard both sides. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that no order of the Commissioner determining their ACP was received by them. The Assistant Commissioner's letters communicating provisional and final determination, by the Commissioner, of their ACP did not meet the requirements of Rule 4 of the ACD Rules. In the absence of valid order of determination of ACP, any demand of duty under Rule 96ZP read with Section 3A is not sustainable in law. Ld. SDR submits that the Assist....