2026 (5) TMI 1373

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... passed by the Ld. Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise, Patna-I Commissionerate. 2. M/s. Simran Metals Limited, Phase-II, Fatuha Industrial Area, Patna - 803 201 [hereinafter referred to as the "appellant"] is a manufacturer of M.S. Ingots of Non-Alloy Steel falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. With the introduction of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f. 01.09.1997, the appellant was liable to pay central excise duty for the goods manufactured through induction furnace under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2.1. Initially, the appellant had opted to pay duty under Rule 96ZO (3) of the Central Excise Rules,1944. The appellant vide letter dated 23.02.1998 addressed to the Commis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....duty confirmed. 4.1. The appellant preferred Appeal challenging the Order-in-Original No. 219-224/MP/Ayukt/Denovo/2001 dated 03.12.2001 before the Tribunal. Thereafter, vide its Final Order No. 387/2002-B dated 05.08.2002, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner, Central Excise, Patna for determining the actual production under Section 3A (4) of the Act and directed to consider the applications for abatement of duty during the period 02.12.1997 to 09.12.1997 and from 09.01.1998 to 31.01.1998. 5. The Ld. Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 06.04.2018 wherein it has been recorded that the admissibility of determination of actual production is not in question; that the appellant had furnished details of producti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(384) E.L.T. 246 (S.C.) / (2023) 3 Centax 279 (S.C.)] 7.2. In view of the above submissions, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant have prayed for setting aside the demand of central excise duty as confirmed vide the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue appearing before us has reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 9. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 10. We find that the appellant has placed on record the 'Statement of Production, Clearance & Duty Paid' for the period from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000. For the sake of ready reference, the extract of the said information furnished by the appellant is reproduced below: - 11. The ld. adjudicating authority, i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....clearance of the goods, we hold that there is no further duty liability to be borne by the appellant for the period from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000. 13. In the result, we set aside the demand of central excise duty confirmed vide the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the appellant, with consequential relief, if any, as per law. (Order pronounced in the open court on 22.05.2026) ============= Document 1 Annex. 24 STATEMENT OF PRODUCTION, CLEARANCE & DUTY PAID FOR THE PERIOD 1/4/98 TO 31/3/2000 PERIOD 01/04/98 TO 31/3/1999 . 107-166 Month Actual Production (in MT) Clearance (in MT) Duty debited in PLA April 98 151.551 126 200 94,652,00 May 98 264.867 267.500 2,00,629.00 June 98 314.395 312 540 2,34,408,00....