TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (1) TMI 131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 2,65,150/- under Rule 9(2) and imposition of penalty and charging of interest. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel Ingots, other Alloy Steel Ingots, Stainless Steel Ingots and Steel Castings. They have got five furnaces installed in their unit. With the issue of Notification No. 53/97-CE dated 30-8-1997 Capacity Based Duty Scheme was introduced w.e.f. 1-9-1997. The Department alleged that the scheme of compounded levy was made effective from 1-9-1997 instead of from 1-8-1997, therefore, CED on the production of Aug' 97 - Closing stock of Non-alloy Steel Ingots as on 31-7-1997 was to be discharged at a rate of Rs. 600/- per m.t. under amended Notification No. 50/97-C.E., ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d from them. It was further alleged as to why CED amounting to Rs. 1,95,163/- due on 117.215 M.T. of Alloy Steel Ingots found short in the factory should not be recovered from them. They were also asked to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed and why interest should not be charged from them. 3. The appellants in reply to the SCN submitted that there were certain ambiguities in the scheme which needed clarification. The appellants stated that they would ordinarily manufacture Alloy Steel Ingots, Stainless Steel and Steel Castings and they also stated that no option letter in terms of Rule 96ZO(4) of Central Excise Rules to avail the capacity based scheme under Rule 96ZO(3) w.e.f. 1-9-1997 was given. They also contended that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emanded under the compounded levy scheme on non-alloy steel ingots in terms of Rule 96ZO(3) as also on Alloy Steel Ingots and Stainless Steel Castings. ld. Consultant submits that in so far as demand of duty under Rule 96ZO(3) is concerned, duty is demanded on the furnace capacity and therefore, demand of duty on Alloy Steel Ingots and Stainless Steel Castings amounts to demand of duty twice. He submits that the appellants never stated that they will be availing the capacity based assessment scheme under Rule 96ZO(3) w.e.f. 1-9-1997. He submits that even for the purpose of Rule 96ZO(3) an explanation has been provided reading as : "For removal of doubts it is hereby clarified that sub-rule (3) does not apply to an induction furnace unit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....based formula or under the standard rate. He submits that since the appellants are manufacturing stainless steel castings and other alloy steel, therefore, they have to pay duty only on the standard rate and not on the compounded levy rate for non-alloy steel and standard rate for alloy steel and stainless steel castings. He, therefore, submits that the appeal may be allowed. 5. Shri Rajeev Tandon, Ld. DR submits that the appellants are manufacturing both non-alloy steel ingots and alloy steel ingots and castings. He, therefore, submits that the authorities below have rightly held that the duty on non-alloy steel products shall be chargeable on compounded levy basis and the products of alloy steel and others shall be chargeable to duty u....