2007 (8) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arte. 2. Revenue is in appeal. 3. The facts as found by the Tribunal are that the respondent-assessee is engaged in the manufacture of steel Ingots, other Alloy Steel Ingots, Stainless Steel Ingots and Steel Castings. Assessee has got five furnaces installed in its unit. With the issue of Notification No. 53/97-C.E. dated 30-8-1997 Capacity Based Duty Scheme was introduced w.e.f. 1-9-1997. D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 1,17,859/- and that the respondent was still to pay Rs. 22,15,542/-. 4. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent asking it to explain as to why Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 22,15,542/- on goods manufactured and cleared without payment of duty during August 1997 should not be demanded and recovered from it under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short '....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t in the factory should not be recovered from it. Respondent was also asked to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed and why interest should not be charged from them. 5. One of the arguments raised on behalf of the assessee-respondent be fore the Tribunal was that the assessee did not opt for the production capacity based duty scheme. It wrote to the department vide its letter dated 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted that they were categorically producing alloy steel and others and incidentally producing non-alloy steel products and castings. We, therefore, hold that in their case standard rate of duty shall be applicable and duty shall not be chargeable twice first on capacity based method and then subsequently on standard rate method. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Consequent relief, if any, s....