- (1.) By means of present appeal, the appellant is challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 3rd June, 2008 by which the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur has been allowed.
(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant was engaged in the processing of man- made compounded fabrics and paying the duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The appellant filed a declaration for fixation of his annual capacity of his hot air stenter under Section 3A of the Act. It appears that initially vide order dated 26th February, 1999, the Commissioner Central Excise Kanpur has fixed the annual production capacity provisionally in terms of value at Rs. 2953.44 lakhs but subsequently vide order dated 29th March, 1999, the annual production capacity has been fixed finally in terms of value, including gallery for stenter no. 1 as Rs. 885.324 lacs, for stenter no. 2 as Rs. 744.684 lacs, for stenter no. 3 as Rs. 744.684 lacs and for stenter no. 4 as Rs. 744.684 lacs with the monthly duty liability for stenter no. 1 as Rs. 9.443 lacs, for stenter no. 2 as Rs. 7.943 lacs, for stenter no. 3 as Rs. 7.943 lacs and for stenter no. 4 as Rs. 7.943 lacs. The above determination was made effective from 16th December, 1998. It appears that the appellant has not disputed the aforesaid fixation of annual production capacity and has accepted the order dated 29th March, 1999 inasmuch as no appeal against the said order was filed. However, the appellant has paid duty under protest.
(3.) It appears that the appellant had not paid excise duty from 16th February, 1998 to March, 1998 in accordance to the fixation of the annual production capacity as per order dated 29th March, 1999 within the specified time and could pay on 21st April, 1999, therefore, a show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent Central Excise, Range-V Division-I, Kanpur dated 23rd August, 1999 asking the appellant why interest on the late deposit be not demanded and the penalty under Rule 96ZQ may not be levied.;