2003 (9) TMI 192

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty of the appellants under Section 3A(4) vis-a-vis Rule 96ZO(3) of the Rules. Therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The learned Counsel has contended that the Commissioner of Central Excise, has travelled beyond the scope of the remand order, dated 7-1-2002 passed by the Tribunal vide which he was directed to determine the duty liability of the appellants under Section 3A(4) of the Act by taking into consideration their dates of the options, but he has not so done and rather held them liable to pay duty in terms of Rule 96ZO(3) of the Rules. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 3. Learned DR on the other hand has reiterated the correctness of the impugned orders by contending that the op....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed upon by both the sides. 5. We find that the Commissioner has totally gone beyond the scope of the remand order and reiterated the earlier order dated 31-7-2001 which was set aside the by the Tribunal. He had rejected the options given by appellant No. (1) vide letters dated 23-3-98, 7-5-99, by appellant No. 2 through letter dated 1-12-97 which was even repeated on 31-3-98. Similarly, the options of appellant No. 3 exercised vide letter dated 18-6-98 and later on again repeated by letter dated 23-4-99 and of appellant No. 4 vide letters, dated 30-3-98, which was repeated by them in their letter, dated 7-5-99, to pay duty on actual production basis, had been also declined by him. The submission of these options letters, by the appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts from exercising their options for payment of duty on actual production basis u/s 3A(4). Rather the perusal of the Circular shows that manufacturer had been permitted to exercise the option for discharge of duty u/s 3A(4) of the Act after opting out of Rule 96ZO(3) of the Rules. Para 15 of the said Circular to which learned SDR has made reference specifically, only clarifies that sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO is optional and the assessee who did not wish to opt for this rule, was required to pay duty at the rate of Rs. 750/- PMT at the time of clearance subject to their total duty liability being as mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 96ZO. This Circular does not in any manner advance the case of Revenue for debarring the appellants from opting....