2008 (6) TMI 200

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cise Act during the material period. Two show-cause notices were issued to them on 24-3-1999, one for recovery of duty for the month of September, 1998 and the other for recovery of duty for the period October, 1998 to February, 1999, both in terms of the annual capacity of production and the consequential monthly duty liability fixed by the jurisdictional Commissioner. Both the notices proposed penalties also on the noticee under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The proposals were contested. The Commissioner of Central Excise, in one order, confirmed demand of duty to the extent of Rs.16,06,507/- for the period October, 1998 to February, 1999 after dropping the demand for the earlier period by granting abatement of duty for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xcise was paid or to be paid under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, stood specifically excluded from the coverage of Notification No. 5/94-C.E. (N.T.) dated 1-3-1994 issued by the Central Government under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, thereby meaning that the said goods were not specified as inputs for the purpose of input duty credit under Rule 57A. Again, as rightly pointed out by her, ingots and billets of non-alley steel were also not specified as final products for purpose of Rule 57A, which means that input duty credit was not available to be utilised in payment of duty on non-alloy steel ingots and billets, on which duty of excise was to be paid under Section 3A This position is clear from Notification No. 21/99-C.....