TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hedule with any other relevant notification issued under Section 5A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. lower authority confirm the demand. Held that- the duty paid by the appellant is more than the duty required to be paid by the domestic unit. As rightly contended, AED (T&TA) is not part of Section 3 leviable mentioned in the schedule 1 and 2 and as such, cannot be taken into consideration for examining the fulfillment of the conditions laid down in the said proviso. Thus, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. - E/226/2006 - A/563/2010-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 25-5-2010 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: Shri P. Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Rajendra Nagar, SDR, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lower authority, confirming demand of duty Rs.83,411/- along with interest and imposing penalty of equal amount. The said order of the original adjudicating authority was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), hence the present appeal. 3. We have heard Shri P. Shah, learned advocate for the Assessee and Shri Rajendra Nagar, learned SDR SDR for the Revenue. We find that the dispute in the present appeal relates to the interpretation of Notification No.23/03-CE, dt.31.3.03. For better appreciation, we reproduce relevant paragraph of the notification. "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as the Central Excise Act), the Central Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he duty of excise leviable on the like goods produced or manufactured outside the export oriented undertaking, Electronic Hardware Technology Park unit or Software Technology Park unit, which is specified in the said Schedule read with the any other relevant notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act: 4. It stand brought to our notice that if both types of duties i.e. BED and SED are taken into consideration, the appellant has paid more than what a manufacturing unit producing like goods, would have paid. The dispute relates to as to whether the AED under Textile and Textile Articles Act, is required to be taken into consideration while calculating the duty required to be paid on the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
