TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same time had taken on lease a unit engaged in the spinning of yarn and weaving of fabrics. He submits that with the introduction of compounded levy, the department collected certain information from the applicants on 15-12-98. He submits that this information led to fixation of compounded levy in spite of the fact that the applicants had proprietary interest in a unit spinning the yarn and weaving the fabrics. He submits that the applicants filed a letter on 31-12-98 to the department. He submits that in this letter, the appellants had clarified the position that "Since we are having proprietary interest in a factory named and styled as M/s. Aar Kay Weaving Factory, Prop. M/s. Aar Kay Processors, situated at Phatak No. 22, Islamabad ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand of duty whereas while passing the order, the Commissioner quantified the demand without putting the applicants to notice. He submits that in view of the decision of the apex court on the question of lessee having proprietary interest, the applicant was not an independent processor and, therefore he submits that duty should have not been demanded on compounded levy basis but on the basis of actual production. He submits that the applicant has already discharged duty on the basis of actual production. He submits that the department has raised two SCNs demanding duty on which no adjudication order has so far been passed. He, therefore prays that in view of the above submissions, pre-deposit of duty and penalty may be waived. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontention except referring to an affidavit which only shows that the applicant did not have regular income. Counsel also submitted that the factory was closed. Having regard to the fact that in the SCNs, there was no stipulation of quantification, coupled with the fact that two SCNs have been issued only on that issue which are awaiting adjudication, we consider it a fit case for remand. In view of the submissions made before us, we dispense with pre-deposit of duty and penalty and remand the case to the Commissioner concerned to examine the issue afresh. With a view to avoid confusion in the case it will be necessary that the two SCNs already issued for showing cause to the Addl. Commissioner may be adjudicated by the Commissioner himself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
