TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 835
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Capacity of Production scheme under Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944. In terms of Rule 3 of allied rules of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1997, the annual capacity production of the appellant was determined as 6239.194 MTs in respect of rerollable products. Since the appellants had availed option under sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZP of Central Excise Rules, 1944, they are required to pay sum equivalent to one-twelfth of the amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month multiplied by the annual capacity in Metric Tonnes, before 10th of the month. The amount so paid was deemed to be in full and final discharge of their duty liability for the said month. During the period 1.4.1998 to 31.3.2000, the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00, after taking note of the fact that appellant has intimated the department with regard to non-production of goods, only on 18.6.1998. For the period 01.04.1998 to 17.06.1998 the demand was confirmed on the ground that appellant had not intimated the department before stopping production / closing of the factory. He adverted to para-13 of the OIO dt.10.09.2001 to contend that department had verified the genuineness of stoppage of production and disconnection of electricity. Since the fact that the factory has been closed for the impugned period has been verified by department appellant ought to have been given benefit of abatement. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Kalai Magal Alloys Steel Pvt. Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tend to go any further in the issue." Thus, it is evident that there was stoppage of production in the factory prior to 18.6.1998 even though the intimation of stoppage of production was given only on 18.06.1998. The commissioner has also observed that the proceedings could have been avoided if the appellant had intimated the department prior to 1.4.1998. the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court on similar set of facts in Kalai Magal Alloys Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has observed as under : "11. Coming to the next contention that the manufacturing activities were closed down from 1-4-1998, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, submitted that the assessee is guilty of not informing the department about the stoppin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eport, is either false or incorrect. From a perusal of the order-in-original, it is seen that the Original Authority has recorded a finding that HT power supply was disconnected with effect from 12-6-1998; but, however, rejected the contention by observing that based on the disconnection of power supply, they cannot presume that the assessee has stopped production since the assessee has not intimated the department. Learned Standing Counsel produced a copy of the letter of the assessee dated 27-7-1998, written to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Pappireddipatty. In the said letter, the assessee has specifically stated that they have stopped production from 1-4-1998. These factual statements made by the assessee, and the report of the R....