9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 5,70,000/- and penalty of Rs. 7,19,016/-, stands confirmed against the appellant for the months of March 1999 to June 1999. It is seen that the appellant was working under the compounded levy scheme. Vide their letter dated 19-1-1999, they informed the Revenue about the decrease in their production capacity on account of reduction of one chamber. Accordingly, an application was filed in An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants draws my attention to the letter dated 19-1-1999 and the annexure attached to the said letter. Subsequently, at the directions of the Revenue, another application was filed on 28-05-1999. Learned advocate submits that the second application was in the requisite Annexure-2 and the same Annexure-2 was filed at the time of submission of their earlier letter on 19-1-1999. There is no differenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead with Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 the appellant prior to change in parameter was required to intimate the department and obtain permission for the same. In the present case, the appellant has not obtained permission but simply intimated. Thus, the appellant has not followed the procedure of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proper form, the said reason by itself cannot be made the ground for holding that the appellant did not apply for permission for closer of the chamber. Any subsequent grant or permission has to relate back to the original date of filing of the application. I fully agree with the appellant that merely because the Revenue has taken time in granting permission especially when the appellant have appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
