TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the exemption during the next financial year. Though the Notification in question was amended vide Notification 119/89-C.E., dated 27-4-89 and the eligibility criteria was increased from Rs. 150 lakhs to Rs. 200 lakhs but the revenue entertained the view that during the period 1-4-89 to 27-4-89 the appellant was required to pay full rate of duty. Accordingly, after following the process of adjudication duty of Rs. 1,84,900/- was confirmed against the appellant. 2. Shri M.H. Patil, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant fairly agrees that the issue stands decided against the appellant by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Rotomould (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2000 (119 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed. 3. Shri S. Singhal, Ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that inasmuch as the issue is decided against the appellant, the appeal on merits is to be rejected. As regards the availment of exemption, he submits that the appellant was required to pay duty during the period 1-4-1989 to 26-4-89 as such there is no question of adjustment of the same. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and it is conceded by the ld. Advocate that the issue stands decided against them by the Larger Bench in the case of Rotomould (India) Pvt. Ltd. referred supra. As regards, the prayer for adjustment in terms of Para 13 of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Marutham Textiles (P) Ltd. Ors. referred supra, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt them adjustment. As such, we find the same has been rightly confirmed against the appellant. We find no merits in the appeal in the said plea of the appellant. The same is, accordingly, rejected. 6. However, Shri M.H. Patil has pleaded that the said duty now being confirmed against, them should be allowed deduction by treating the entire realization as cum-duty price, in terms of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Srichakra Tyres [1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 (Tri. - LB)]. We agree with him on this count. Accordingly, original adjudicating authority would requantify the demand by treating the entire realization as cum-duty and allowing the benefit of duty deduction. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
