M\/s Mohammadi Steel Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nashik
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 1382 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 5-7-2018
Appeal No. E\/86209\/18 – A\/87037\/2018
Central Excise
DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
\nShri Jayesh P Doshi, C.A. for Appellant
\nShri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (AR) for Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Dr. D.M. Misra
\nHeard both sides.
\n2. This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Original No. NSK\/CGST-CS\/002\/CPM\/13\/2017-18 dated 29.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nasik.
\n3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant during the relevant period i.e. May, 1998 to March, 2001 were engaged in the manufacture of re-rolling products and discharged duty under Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZP(3) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, on the basis of the Annual Production Capacity fixed by the competent authority. During the said period, th<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n r contra learned AR vehemently argued that this Tribunal has decided the issue. He further submits that all these issues have been considered by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajuri Steels Pvt. Ltd. – 2008 (225) ELT 189 (Bom), wherein it has been held that once the assessee opted to discharge duty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, he cannot in turn ask for abatement under Rule 96ZP(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Further, he submits that in absence of stay from the Supreme Court, the precedent on the issue ought to be followed. In support he referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi -I Vs. Space Telelink Ltd. – 2017 (358) ELT 189 (Del). = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n all not have benefit of proviso to sub-section (3) as also sub section (4) of Section 3, which we have already reproduced hereinabove. If the proviso to sub-section (3) is not available, the manufacturer-enjoying benefit of payment by the procedure prescribed under Rule 96-ZP(3) shall have no remission, merely because production had come to halt for certain period, although exceeding seven days. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Mohammadi Steel Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, NashikCentral Excise2018 (8) TMI 1382 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 5-7-2018Appeal No. E\/86209\/18 – A\/87037\/2018Central ExciseDR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Jayesh P Doshi, C.A. for Appellant Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra … Continue reading “M\/s Mohammadi Steel Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nashik”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13385","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13385","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13385"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13385\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13385"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13385"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13385"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides. I find that learned C.A. for the appellant could not produce any order whereby, the operation of the judgment of 3 members Bench in the case of Supreme S<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. So far as reliance placed by Advocate Shri Chillarge on proviso to sub-section (2) is concerned, on comparing the text of sub-section (2) with sub-section (3), it is evident that, sub-section (2) is pertaining the procedure for determination of annual production capacity whereas subsection (3) is regarding rate and manner of recovery, wherein proviso enables some relaxation. Proviso relied upon by Advocate Shri Chillarge is for the purpose of determination of annual production capacity. If the authorities, after declaring particular product as “notified goods”, proceeds to fix the annual pr<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n