METAL STRIPS Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the sides. The appellants filed a refund claim of Rs. 45,000 as one cold rolled machine was dismantled for three months and they had paid duty under protest in respect of this machine.

(2.) The appellants were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme as per the duty assessed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. They applied for dismantling of machine for three months and the necessary permission was granted by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide letter dated 25.5.98. Accordingly, the machine was dismantled. However, on asking of the Revenue, they paid duty and thereafter filed refund claim which was rejected. The contention of the appellant is that the machine was dismantled for three months i.e., from 1.7.98 to 30.9.98 with due permission from the competent authority. Therefore, for three months they are not liable to pay any duty. The appellants relied on the decision of Jupiter Industries v. CCE, Jaipur, 2001 (137) ELT 1018.

(3.) The contention of the Revenue is that no refund is permissible in view of the proviso of Sub -rule (2) of Rule 96 -ZB(1) of Central Excise Rules.