COSMOS ISPAT (P) LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appeared on behalf of the appellants. By letter dated 30th June, 2008 the appellants requested to decide the matter in their absence on the basis of written submissions. Heard learned D.R. on behalf of the Revenue.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Hot Re -rolled products of non -alloy steels falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were registered with the Central Excise Department for manufacturing excisable goods in the month of May, 1997. Their mill was closed from 1.8.1997 to 18.11.97, which was duly informed to the Central Excise office. From September, 1997 Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act was introduced on iron & steel products. By letter dated 17.11.97 the appellants declared various parameters of the mill for the purpose of determination of Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) and duty liability. They opted for payment of duty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. By impugned order dated 30th June, 2004 the Commissioner held that the appellants were required to pay duty of Rs. 1,72,725/ - per month in terms of order dated 20.11.97 from 1.9.1997 onward without abatement or relief.

(3.) Learned D.R. on behalf of the Revenue submits that Sub -rule (3) of Rule 96Z(P) of the said Rules provides that if a manufacturer having a total furnace capacity of 3 M.T. installed in his factory so desired, he may from 1st September, 1997 to 31st March, 1998 or any other financial year, as the case may be, pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs per month in two equal installments. He submits that there is no dispute that the appellants' factory having a total furnace capacity of 3 M.T. installed in their factory and therefore, they are liable to pay duty from 1st September, 1997. He also submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Venus Castings (P) Ltd. reported in held that option under Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be changed. He also submits that Rule is very clear and, therefore, the appellants are liable to pay duty from 1.9.97 even if there was no production.