REBY CASTINGS (PVT.) LTD. Vs. CCE JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four appeals have been filed by the appellants, M/s. Reby Castings (P) Ltd. against the common Order -in -Appeal dated 19th Jan., 2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur, vide which he had up -held the four orders of different dated, of the Joint Commissioner (Tech.), who confirmed the duty and penalties of various amounts as indicated in those orders, for the period September, 1997 to March, 1999, on the appellants.

(2.) THE appellants were engaged in the manufacture of ingots/billets of non -alloy steel faling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. These goods were notified under Notification No.30/97 -CE (NT) dated 30.8.97, as amended by Notification No.43/97 -CE (NT) dated 30.08.97 by the Central Government, for which duty was required to be charged under Section 3 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96 ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The total capacity of the furnace of the appellants for the purpose of discharging duty was determined provisionally by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide Order dated 29.09.97 at 3.3 MTs and as a consequence thereof, they were required to deposit Rs.5,50,000/ - per month as excise duty liability, under Rule 96 ZO (3). when they failed to discharge duty, according to that order, they were served with four show cause notices, dated 4.9.98 for the period September, 97 to March, 98, for payment of duty of Rs.14,92,097/ -, dated 3.11.98 for the period April, 98 to September, 98, for payment of duty of Rs.7,45,445/ -, dated 2.4.99 for the period October'98 to March'99, for payment of duty of Rs.15,65,000/ - and dated 25.06.99 for the period September'97 to March'99 for payment of duty of Rs.10,86,173/ -.

(3.) AFTER getting their reply to all those show cause notices, wherein they denied their liability for payment of duty amounts mentioned therein mainly on the ground that their abatement claim for the period 1.9.97 to 31.3.99 was pending and that they had already opted out from the Scheme w.e.f. (SIC) and as such were liable to pay the duty only on the actual production. The Joint Commissioner (Tech.) however, did not agree with these contentions of the appellants and accordingly confirmed the duty demand as detailed in the show cause notices referred to above and also imposed penalties of various amounts as recorded in his orders -in -original. Feeling dis -satisfied with all those orders,m the appellants filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who up -held all those orders through common Orders -in -Appeals dated 19.01.2000.