2022 (8) TMI 1248

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ef facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in manufacture of Stainless Steel Cold Rolled Patta/Patti falling under chapter 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and having Central Excise Registration No. AABFM5571DXM001. The appellant was operating under compound levy scheme prescribed under Notification No. 17/2007-CE dated 01.03.2007, where the appellant was required to pay Rs. 40,000/- per cold rolling machine per month. The appellant deposited Rs. 2,80,000/- for the whole month of October 2015 in respect of seven cold rolling machines, but applied for reduction (closure) of one machine from 06.10.15 to 31.10.15 and for another rolling machine from 15.10.15 to 31.10.15. They filed refund claim of pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rolling machine which has been removed on 29th May, 1998. In other words, no production has been taken place in respect of cold rolling machine which ceased to operate before the first July, 1996, no review could have been allowed in respect of estimated production in that machine. This is the simple logic which prevailed within the Tribunal and in our opinion rightly. No contrary view can be taken from the reading of the Rules also. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal was valid. 24. Moreover, when there is no production of any articles in relation to the machine which was not in existence, the question of passing on duty to consumers of existing goods can arise so as to require the invocat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uty on monthly basis at specified rate under the scheme, per machine, does not go beyond the scope of charging section as it nowhere states that duty for a month shall be charged if there is production on each day of the month. It was further observed that in the matter of M/s Jupiter Industries, there was no production for continuous period of three months and thus the facts are entirely different and not applicable in the instant case. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant-assessee before this Tribunal. Learned Counsel Mr. Jitin Singhal, inter alia urges that under similar facts and circumstance, that the machine was not operated for part of the month, a division bench of this Tribunal in Paradise Steel Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE & CGST, Jaipur vide....