2006 (2) TMI 382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... None, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.C. Mamgain, Member (T)]. - The respondents are manufacturers of hot re-rolled products of non-alloys steel and had opted for payment of duty under Rule 96ZP(3) on capacity of production determined under the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. Originally, the levy was proposed to be implemented from 1-8-97 but later ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed during August, 1997. However, Notification No. 4/2000-C.E. (N.T.) dated 31-1-2000 was issued under Section 11C for no charging the duty in excess of Rs. 300/- PMT on the goods manufactured during the month of August, 1997. Accordingly, duty of Rs. 26,196/- was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) however, s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respondents) were manufactured by a mill with nominal diameter exceeding 160 mm. There would be no change in the rate of duty prescribed under S. No. 3 of Notification 50/97. 2. It was argued by the revenue that Notification No. 50/97 dated 1-8-97 as amended by Notification No. 57/97, dated 30-8-97 does not state about the rate of duty applicable on the goods being manufactured by the res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the respondents. 4. We find that Notification No. 50/97-C.E., dated 1-8-97 was amended by Notification No. 57/97-C.E., dated 30-8-97 prescribing the rate of duty effective from the first day of September, 1997. Therefore, for the goods manufactured in August, 1997 only the tariff rate i.e. 15% of ad valoram is applicable. Since there was confusion about the rate of duty as originally....