2015 (10) TMI 1688

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....09.1997, they were working under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and discharging duty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rule 1944. 2. Four show cause notices were issued during the period from 1998 to 2000 proposing demand of duty under Rule 96ZP of the said Rules 1944 alongwith interest and to impose penalty. By order dated 24.02.2001, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and also imposed penalty. By Order dated 17.06.2005, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority for deciding the issue by way of speaking order and after hearing the appellant and taking into consideration the change of 'D' factor and other relevant facts as indicated in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of duty for the period 28.02.1999 to 05.11.1999 under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the erstwhile Rules. By Order (Appeal) dated 16.05.2005, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that assessee is not covered under the Compounded Levy Scheme notified under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with erstwhile Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules. Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held as under:- "7. The Hon'ble High Court relying upon the judgments in the case of Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1969) 2 SCC 412 and subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd. reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) concluded that no proceedings could....