TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his is the second round of litigation. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant being Rolling Mills applied/opted payment of tax under the Compounded Levy Scheme by filing declaration dated 13.8.1997 opting to pay duty under Rule 96ZP (3) read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the financial year 1997-98. Thereafter, annual capacity of production was determined and the appellant was paying duty accordingly. From order-in-original pursuant to show cause notice it appeared to Revenue on examination of the records, during the period 1.6.98 to 30.11.98, Central Excise duty was paid Rs. 1 lakh only against the duty liability of Rs. 40,16,400/- being the duty @ Rs. 6,69,400/- per month under Rule 96ZP (3) and as suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y have already paid duty as demanded in the impugned order and they will not ask for the refund of the duty already paid till the issue is finally decided by the Commissioner. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The appeal stands disposed of by way of remand". 4. Pursuant to remand by this Tribunal the present impugned order-in-original has been passed. Ld. Commissioner has again confirmed the duty and penalty under CLS observing that the appellant vide their letter dated 18.12.98 requested for re- determination of the duty liability under Rule 96ZP(3) on account of change in the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... continued proceedings, initiated, without conclusion thereto. The Hon'ble High Court held that no proceedings could have been initiated under the omitted Rule 96ZQ after omission of Section 3A with effect from 11.5.2001 in the absence of saving clause. The High Court further held that proceedings which were pending as on 11.5.2001 even if initiated prior to omission of Rules, would thereafter automatically lapse and no orders could have been passed if they were not concluded at the time of omission of Section 3A. Ld. Counsel also points out that the judgment of Hon'ble High court in Krishna Processors has been followed in several decisions by this Tribunal including Alwar Processors Pvt. Ltd. by a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal ....