TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ennai. 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 Gummidipundi and the other at Salem. They are engaged in the manu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 15,000/-. 7. As against the order passed by the Original Autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Miscellaneous Appeals. 10. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appella....