KESHAV NILU STEELS (P) LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant manufactures MS Ingots etc. under induction furnace process. Under Notification No. 23/97 -CE(NT) dated 25.7.97 and 30/97 dated 1.8.97 such goods were brought under the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This has the effect of imposing duty at compounded rates. The present appeal challenges duty demand at compounded rates and seeks levy of duty based on the actual production. Ground (B) of the Appeal states as under:

(2.) AS against this, the submission of the Revenue is that the appellant had discharged duty as specified in Sub -rule (3) of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules in terms of Compounded Levy Scheme and that, that rule specifically excludes re -fixation of duty liability under Sub -section (4) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is also pointed out that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of

(3.) WE have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. Compounded Levy Scheme is an alternative scheme for collection of duty. This is made clear by the non -obstante clause with which Section 3A opens: "notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3" (Section 3 being the provision levying duty based on production).