2019 (5) TMI 808

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it has been alleged that the respondent-assessees had opted for payment of Central Excise duty on their manufactured products under the compounding duty scheme as pronounced under sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and subsequently five show cause notices were issued demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 65,00,000/- under sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The interest and penalty provisions were also imposed on the respondent-assessees. The details of show cause notices are as under: S. No. Show Cause Notice No. & Date Amount (in Rs.) Period 1 CE20/DEMAND/ATUL/NLG/98/1275 Dated 03.03.1998 21,00,000 08/97 to 02/98 2 V-30(62)D/98/2395-97 Dated 30.09.1998 12,00,000 03/98 to 0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g them the benefit of opting out the compounding duty scheme as provided under Rule 96ZO(3)(i) from 01.04.1998. It has been a contention of the Department that the respondent-assessees have never been opted out the compounding duty scheme and therefore the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of C.E. vs. Venus Castings Pvt Ltd - 2000 (117) ELT 273 (S.C.) and in the case of U.O.I. vs. Supreme Steels And General Mills - 2001 (133) ELT 513 (S.C.) are not relevant as the facts have mentioned by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order were not present before the Original Adjudicating Authority. It has therefore been contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in dropping the demand on flimsy grounds which were a....