TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1805
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the appellant are engaged in manufacturing of CTD bars and rods falling under Chapter 7214 and mild steel ingots falling under 7206 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985. During the disputed period, appellants were discharging the Excise Duty under the Compound Levy Scheme for the ingots manufactured by them. Appellants have paid the Excise Duty under Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Appellant has suspended the manufacturing activity from 14.11.1998 to 14.12.1998 and intimated to the department vide letter dated 16.11.1998. On 18.01.1999, appellant has fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice is not sustainable in law. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a. Commissioner v. Shital International [2010 (259) ELT 165 (SC)] wherein it was held that it is trite law that unless the foundation of the case is laid in the show cause notice, the revenue cannot be permitted to build up a new case against the assessee. b. Hindustan Polymers Co. Ltd v. CCE, 1999 (106) ELT 12 (SC); c. Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd v. CCE, 1996 (88) ELT 641 (SC). 4. He further submitted that appellant is eligible for abatement under Section 3A(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZO(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. In order to appreciate the controversy it is relevant to reproduce the extract of Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al discharge of his duty liability for the period from the 1st day of August, 1997 to 31st day of March, 1998, or any other financial year, as the case may be, subject to the condition that the manufacturer shall not avail of the benefit, if any, under proviso to subsection (3) or under sub-section (4) of the section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944)" He further submitted that aforesaid rule was amended vide Notification No. 44/97-CE (NT) dt.30.08.1997 with effect from 01.09.1997 which reads as follows: "(3) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in these rules, if a manufacturer having a total furnace capacity of 3 metric tonnes installed in his factory so desires, he may, from the 1st day of September, 1997 to the 31....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, the appellant is rightly eligible for the abatement. For this submission, he relied upon the following: a. CBEC Circular No. 331/47/97-CX, dated 30.08.1997; b. Jindal Electro Castings Pvt ltd v. CCE, 2003 (161) ELT 1191 (Tri-Delhi) 6. He further submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Supreme Steels and General Mills is not applicable to the instant case because the issue involved in that case is Section 3A(4) vis-à-vis Rule 96ZO(3) whereas the instant case is about Section 3A(3) vis-à-vis Rule 96ZO(3). He also submitted that there was no delay in intimation to the department. The alleged delay was due to the days being Saturday and Sunday and the intimation made on 16.11.1998 was su....