2017 (10) TMI 1171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oth the cases are identical, so both are taken up together for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case are that during the period under consideration, September, 2013 to March, 2014 and February, 2014 to March, 2014 respectively, the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of stainless steel patta/ pattis, falling under Chatper 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944. The appellants had exercised the option to pay duty under compounded levy scheme. During the period under consideration, the Pollution Control Board has closed the factory and there was no production but the department has demanded the duty in regular scheme. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeals. 4. With this background, we heard Shri G....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....asthan High Court it is apparent that no procedure set out in a notification can over-rule the substantiative charging section in the Act. It is also relevant to note that while on the one side the Commissioner held that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court was dealing with a compounded 10 EX/52419 of 2015 levy scheme under Rule 96 ZB and, hence, cannot be applied to be provision of Notification 17/2007-CE, on the other hand in the same order he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sathavahana Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd. vs. Government of India reported in 1999 (14) E.L.T. 787 (AP) which is also on interpretation of same compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZO and not dealing with the provision of Notification 17/2007-CE. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ailure to follow the special procedure. Suppose we consider a situation where even during such closure the assessee/appellant discharged the duty payable as per the special procedure, based on number of cold rolling machine, then the question of "failure" would not have arisen and the demand for subsequent 4 months also would not have also arisen. We have perused one of the sample demands. Assessee/appellant who has got six cold rolling machines installed has to discharge Rs. 2,47,200/- as central excise duty per month. The said assessee/appellant discharged the said duty for the period May to August 2013 as per the said rate. However, for March and April 2013 no duty was paid. This resulted in a demand of Rs. 1,32,38,252/-. If the assessee....