2014 (12) TMI 739

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. 2. At the time of admission of the above appeals, the following substantial questions of law have been framed: "1. Whether by way of a subsequent notification No.4/2000-CE-NT, dated 31.1.2000, can the duty liability be fixed for the month of August, 1997? 2. Whether because of notification No.4/2000-CE-NT, dated 31.1.2000 a fresh show cause notice is required or not? and 3. Whether the first respondent/Tribunal can ignore the legal issue that the order of adjudicating authority is beyond the scope of the proposal made in the show cause notice?" 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: M/s.Salem Steel Industries, the appellants herein, have two units, one at Gummidipun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the total quantity, the assessee had manufactured during August 1997, was 1350.925 MT, for which the assessee had paid duty for 180.375 MT and hence there was a balance of quantity at 1170.550 MT, for which the duty has to be paid. Hence, the Original Authority ordered recovery of duty alone without imposing penalty. 6. In respect of the Gummidipundi unit, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) passed an order holding that the assessee was liable to pay the duty amount at Rs. 300/- per MT in view of the Notification No.4/2000-Central Excise (NT) dated 31.1.2000. Accordingly, the Commissioner confirmed the demand made by the Adjudicating Authority. Since the assessee did not pay the duty, the Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 15....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in respect of hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel manufactured in the month of August, 1997 on which duty had been paid under Section 3A. Hence the Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority restricted the demand of duty to Rs. 300/- per MT.  Accordingly, the order of the Adjudicating Authority in so far as the recovery of the duty was upheld by the Tribunal.  In so far as levy of penalty is concerned, the Tribunal taking note of the various notifications held that the assessee had no intention of evading payment of duty, since they were under the impression that they were covered under the compounded levy scheme, deleted the penalty. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the assessee has filed the present Civil Miscel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te of the compounded levy scheme was changed to 01.09.1997, the assessee was ineligible to seek concessional rate of duty under the said scheme.  It is seen from the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) that the assessee in his written submission dated 20.11.2003 had admitted that the rate of duty of Rs. 300/- per MT was in consonance with Notification No.4/2000-CE(NT) dated 31.1.2000. 13. In such view of the matter, that the assessee itself had admitted that Notification No.4/2000-CE(NT) dated 31.1.2000 is applicable for the goods cleared during August 1997, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after taking note of various notifications, viz., Notification No.48/97, CE dated ....