SIMPLEX INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the hearing of the applications for interim stay, the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned authorised representative for the department, submitted that the appeal itself can be finally disposed of in the light of the contentions canvassed by both the sides. We have, therefore, taken up the appeal itself for final disposal.

(2.) THE grievance of the appellant is that the Commissioner did not consider the claim of the appellant under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and failed to determine the actual production as contemplated therein, for the purpose of redetermining the amount of duty payable by the assessee with reference to actual production at the rates specified under Sub -section (3) of Section 3A.

(3.) THERE is no dispute over the fact that the appellant had not opted to pay the lump sum amount as contemplated under Sub -rule (3) of Rule 96ZO framed under the said rules. Since such an option was not exercised under Sub -rule(3) of Rule 96 ZO, it remained open for the manufacturer to avail of the benefit, if any, under Sub -section (4) of Section 3A of the said Act, which reads as under: