2007 (2) TMI 499

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. -  The prayer in the application is to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 1,76,55,582/-, which stands confirmed against the applicant by denying them the benefit of compounded levy scheme in terms of Notification No. 32/2001-C.E., dated 28-6-2001, for the period August, 2001 to March, 2002. 2. After .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n, the applicant claimed the benefit of sub-para (1) of para 7 of the Notification. However, the adjudicating authority has referred to para 7(2) of the notification which is in respect of a processing factory existing as on 1st May, 2001. The same requires the applicant to make an application on or before 20th May, 2001. Commissioner has observed that inasmuch as the Central Excise registration w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner's reference to para 7(2) of the notification prima facie, is not in accordance with law, inasmuch as the same applies to processing unit in existence as on 1st May, 2001. Merely because the appellant was registered with the Central Excise department on 12th April, 2001, without any production, will not make them existing and processing factory. We also find force in the learned Advoca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X