2022 (12) TMI 903

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... difference of opinion among the constituents of the Bench was resolved, upon reference to Third Member, with majority opining that the matter should be remanded to the original authority. 2. The limited issue for determination in this appeal is the conformity of the findings of the lower authorities with the terms of remand. The dispute pertains to the proposal of central excise authorities to include 2 nos. 'cold rolling machines' - claimed by the appellant to be 'standby' and functionally inoperable - in assessment under 'compounded levy scheme', in pursuance of rule 96 ZA - ZV of Central Excise Rules, 1944 along with notification no. 109/94-CE (NT) dated 13th May 1994, between January 1997 and January 1998 culminating in assessment o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nes purchased for use as standby have not been installed and never used are inconsistent and self-contradictory. There was no occasion, according to the appellant, warranting use of the standby machines. Appellant reportedly not installed the machines probably not expecting any such exigencies. In any case, the appellant for the reasons best known to him, failed to comply with the statutory declarations required to be filed under Rule 96ZC and Rule 96ZL indicating the material facts including the changes, if any, to the department. 11. Department has established it's case with reasonable evidences. On the other hand, the appellant had failed to come up with any satisfactory explanations on the suppression of material facts amou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... MSEB on which only one machine can operate. This plea was also taken before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any findings on this aspect. Admittedly, the appellants were availing special procedure under Notification No. 33/97 issued under Rule 96ZB. Therefore, the burden of proof that they have not utilized the two machines is on the appellant. This aspect requires reconsideration. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding afresh, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand.' xxxxxx '7. I find that on the date of visit it was found tha....