TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 893
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 28/06/2001, as amended, whether the compounding facility have been rightly rejected and secondly, whether the appellant is liable to pay Central Excise duty on removal of the scrap during the period of dispute June, 2003 to March, 2006. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Aluminum Utensils falling under CETH 7615 and they also manufacture intermediate product namely; Aluminum Circles falling under CETH 7606. As Aluminum Utensils were exempted from levy of Central Excise duty, the appellant did not take registration nor was paying any Central Excise duty. That in the inspection, which took place in the factory premises, in 23rd February, 2007 it was found that no manufacturing activity i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es: (A) payment of duty @ of 2500 per MT under Notification No. 6/2002 CE subject to condition that no Cenvat credit is taken on inputs or capital goods and the second condition being that the goods are not produced or manufactured from Aluminum ore or Aluminium concentrate, or (B) In terms of under Notification No. 34/2001 CE dated 28/06/2001 as amended, wherein the appellant-assessee has an option to pay duty of Central Excise on the basis of Cold Rolling Machines installed for Cold Rolling (Compounded levy) (a) where the length of roller is 30 inches or less - Rs. 7,500/- per month (b) where the length of roller is more than 30 inches Rs. 10,000/- per month. It further appeared that the appellant have not opted for any of the two opt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urther penalty of Rs. 18,14,449/- was imposed under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, no penalty was imposed under Rule 26 proposed on the Directors Shri Murlidhar Agarwal the CEO of the appellant company. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order, was pleased to reject the appeal of the appellant-assessee, but was pleased to allow the appeal of Revenue, allowing levy of duty on Aluminum Scrap Rs. 27,53,882/- which was dropped by the joint Commissioner in the Order-in-Original and also imposed penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 of equal amount on the same. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tly, Show Cause Notice was issued, alleging that benefit of Notification No. 34/2001-CE was not applicable, inasmuch as the procedure in terms of the said notification was not followed by the appellant. The ld. counsel placed reliance on the ruling of Division Bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Versus Christian Medical College Hospital reported at 2007 (208) E.L.T. 531 (Tri. Chennai). This Tribunal held that where option of choosing between two notifications is there, and description of goods in both notifications give opportunity to the assessee to choose one of his choice, the assessee is entitled to choose a notification more favourable to him. He, further, states that there is no disability in the sa....