- (1.) HEARD Shri Devnath, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Amit Mahajan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. This appeal has been admitted mainly on the ground that whether the appellant is liable for the duty for the financial year 1999 -2000 on the actual production or on the deemed production under rule 96ZO(3).
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. ingots of non -alloy steel on the introduction of the compounded levy scheme. The appellant filed the necessary declaration under rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules for discharging the liability. It appears that a declaration was made under the rule 96ZO(3) vide letter dated August 3, 1997 for the financial year 1997 -98 and it also appears that one letter has also been issued on April 1, 1998. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not disputing the liability of the payment of duty under rule 96ZO(3) for the financial years 1997 -98 and 1998 -99. The appellant is only disputing the liability of duty under rule 96ZO(3) for the financial year 1999 -2000. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant has not given any option for the payment of duty under rule 96ZO as required under sub -rule (3) for the financial year 1999 -2000 and has made a request for the determination of the capacity of the furnace under section 3A of the Central Excise Act and accordingly is liable for duty under section 3A.
(3.) THE Commissioner of Central Excise in its adjudication order dated July 8, 2007 in substance has held that the appellant is also liable for the duty in the financial year 1999 -2000 under rule 96ZO(3) because the appellant has not revoked the option under the said rule.;