ORDER
Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides. In view of the fact that the appeal filed by M/s. Shree Venkatesh Steel Ltd. is on a different issue, the same is separated from the group of appeals heard together and is dealt in this order.
2. Shri T. Gunasekaran, learned Advocate for the appellants states that there is a demand of duty of Rs. 1,68,43,496/- on the appellants under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, and that the appellants have also been denied Modvat credit of Rs. 8,27,87,599/- apart from penalties of Rs. 25 lakhs and Rs. 50 lakhs imposed on the appellants. He states that the appellants manufacture both notified and non-notified goods and that during the disputed period the goods notified under the Compounded Levy Scheme amounted to 47% of the total manufacture, whereas 53% was the non-notified goods. He states that in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhawani Shankar Castings Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh apportioning of capacity used in manufacture of non-notified goods is not permissible under the Compounded Levy Scheme. He further states that in the appellants’ case since the production is predominantly of the non-notified goods, they are required to pay only normal duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and not under Section 3A. The learned Counsel also states that in fact they have paid a higher amount of duty Rs. 1,84,14,286/- through P.L.A. which is more than the amount of demand of duty Rs. 1,68,43,496/- under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3 We find merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. Following the ratio of the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Bhawani Shankar Castings Ltd. (Supra), we hold that since the appellants were producing predominantly non-notified goods, they are entitled to discharge duty liability for the entire quantity of goods under the normal procedure under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and they are also eligible to take Modvat credit on the inputs used.
4. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential benefit to the appellants.
(Pronounced in Court on 16-12-2005)