TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avail the benefit of both these notifications and they are required to clear the goods at tariff rate of 16% ad valorenm. 2. The learned Advocate submits that the Commissioner has given a detailed finding upholding the assessee's contention for availing the benefit of the Notifications. He also contended that the demands are barred by time and also there was no suppression of facts, as all the facts were known to the department and concessional rate of duty was being paid. Therefore, invoking larger period beyond the time-limit is not sustainable. 3. The learned SDR reiterated the ground of appeal. He could not show to the Bench as to how the demands were sustainable and not time barred. There was no allegation of suppression of facts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) of the said notification. Having availed of notification No. 8/2001-C.E., the appellants have the option of clearing the goods at tariff rate of 16% ad valorem or avail notification No. 9/2001- C.E., dated 1-3-2001 or they may avail notification No. 10/2002-CE. In my opinion the appellants are eligible to avail the Notification No. 9/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001, because there is no provision in Notification No. 8/2001- CE., which stipulated that appellants are not eligible to avail notification No. 9/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001, after availing notification No. 8/2001-CE in the month of March, 2002. The appellants have also informed in writing to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, of their intention to avail Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 80 lakhs or 90 lakhs, as the case may be. In the present case, the appellants had cleared the goods of the value of Rs. 9,47,436/- only, which was within the exemption limit of Rs. 10 lakhs, as provided under notification No. 8/2001, as amended by notification No. 11/2002, dated 1-3-2002. The appellants were entitled to additional clearances of aggregate value of rupees ninety lakhs at concessional rate of duty. The total dearanee value in this case under both the notifications (8/2001 and 9/2001) comes to Rs. 28,97,741/- only which is within the exemption limits prescribed under the said notifications. The eligibility of the appellants, thus cannot be disputed and duty cannot be demanded at the rate of 16% ad valorem as contended b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d hence the same is not sustainable. In my view appellants have correctly availed the SSI notifications. They have paid the excise duty of Rs. 1,96,492/- at 9.6% ad valorem, as per provisions of notification No 9/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001. The adjudicating authority has not taken into consideration the payment of duty amounting to Rs. 1,96,492/-already made by the appellants while clearing the goods. He has, on the contrary wrongly confirmed the duty of Rs. 3,12.048/- against the appellants, which is not at all recoverable form the appellants. The appellants have paid the duty amount correctly as per notification No. 9/2001, and no more duty is payable by them. The demand confirmed against the appellants is not sustainable. The impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
