TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 839
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Flats, Squares etc, and discharging duty under Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZP of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. They were issued with a demand notice on 29.07.1998 alleging short payment of duty of Rs. 2,50,835.00 for the period January 1998 to March 1998; also issued with two more demand notices dt.08.03.1999 and 31.05.2000. On adjudication, the learned Commissioner has confirmed the demand against the Show Cause Notice dt.29.07.1998 imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and directed recovery of interest; however he has dropped demands raised under the other two Show Cause Notices. Aggrieved by the said Order in dropping the demands, Revenue filed appeal before this Tribunal which was decided against Revenue r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (117) ELT 273(SC). Further, he has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court following the ratio laid down in Venus Casting's case has observed in Supreme Steels And General Mills' case that once the assessee exercises option to discharge duty on lump sum basis by following the procedure laid down under Rule 96ZP(3), then he cannot be permitted to discharge duty on actual production basis and eligible to the benefit prescribed under Sub. Sec(4) of Sec. 3A of CEA,1944 in the same Finanacial year. 6. We find that the learned Commissioner has confirmed the demand, observing that the Appellant has opted to pay the duty on lump sum basis by following the procedure laid down under Rule 96ZP(3) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and henc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of closure of factory/non-production in our view is immaterial. We are fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Venus Steel Castings case(supra), wherein their Lordships Observed as: "10. The schemes contained in Section 3A(4) of the Act and Rule 96ZO(3) or Rule 96ZP(3) of the Excise Rules are two alternative procedures to be adopted at the option of the assessee. Thus the two procedures do not clash with each other. If the assessee opts for procedure under Rule 96ZO(1) he may opt out of the procedure under Rule 96ZO(3) for a subsequent period and seek the determination of annual capacity of production. An assessee cannot have a hybrid procedure of combining the procedure under Rule 96ZO(1) to which Section 3A(4) of....