2015 (10) TMI 283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d appeal and the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Ld. Commissioner vide order dated 31/3/2000. The Ld. Commissioner again fixed the annual capacity of production vide order dated 27/3/2001. The appellant preferred appeal again and the Tribunal vide order dated 12/9/2001 again remanded the matter to the Ld. Commissioner. The department filed a reference petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan which was rejected. On de-novo proceedings, the ld. Commissioner fixed the annual capacity of production w.e.f. 30/7/1999. Again, aggrieved by the said order, appeal was preferred by the appellant and the Tribunal vide order dated 4/2/2004 directed that the date for change in the parameter of production capacity is to be taken from 1/1/19....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hey have filed declaration dated 17/7/1998 under Rule 96ZP (4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the Commissioner (appeal) erroneously was applying the date of 1/1/1999 which is for fixation of ACP. The department also has filed an appeal against the impugned order of the ld. Commissioner (appeal) praying for equal penalty under Rule 96ZP of Central Excise Rules, 1944 along with interest for the period 1/7/1998 to 31/12/1998 and penalty of Rs. 60,000/- under Rule 173Q. 4. During the oral submission ld. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that no proceedings can continue under compounded levy scheme after the omission of Section 3(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also Rule 96 ZQ. Reliance was placed on the Tribunal's order in the case o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant on 17.7.1998 is evidenced. Even in the impugned order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) he observed that declaration filed could not be traced by department and hence penalty cannot be imposed. It is also clear that the date declaration taken as 1.1.1999 by the ld. Commissioner is not correct and it is a mix up with the effective date of re-determination of ACP decided by the Tribunal. In the ex-parte order dated 21.1.2003 of original authority no specific discussion was found regarding date declaration or reason for confirmation of demand for the period prior to 1.1.1999. On appeal in the impugned order also no specific findings were recorded on these. The demands in show cause notices relating to the period prior to February, 1999 were is....