9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfactory, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. 3. The issue involved in this case is whether monthly ER-1 return is required to be filed in respect of an assessee, who is operating under the compounded levy scheme. In the instant case, the appellant, M/s. Zaidan Metal Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., manufacture aluminium circles and operate under compounded levy scheme notified vide notification No.17/07-CE dated 01/03/2007, which prescribes a levy of Rs.12,000/- per cold rolling machine installed in the appellants factory premises. They discharge the duty liability. A notice was issued to the appellant proposing imposition of penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for contravention of Rule 12 (1) of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant is not required to file the monthly returns as envisaged under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. He further submits that under para 4 of the said notification 17/07-CE, the manufacturer operating under the compounded levy scheme has to make a declaration and maintain accounts as provided therein. The manufacturer has to make an application in the prescribed format seeking permission to remove the aluminium circles from his premises during the ensuing month declaring the maximum number of cold rolling machines installed by him or his behalf in one or more premises at any time during three calendar months immediately preceding the said calendar month in which such application is made. In the case under consideration, the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are required to be discharged by a person operating under the said notification and under the said notification an application has to be filed on a quarterly basis indicating the number of cold rolling machines installed and duty liability required to be discharged and actually discharged. Under compounded levy scheme, this is the statutory return which is required to be filed and not the return under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Inasmuch as the appellant has complied with the said procedure, I hold that the appellant has not violated the provisions of Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rule, 2002 and accordingly, the imposition of penalty on the appellant under Rule 27 for violation of Rule 12 is not correct in law. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
