9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 or mis-declaration in the matter. The Revenue has also not taken any ground on time bar. Therefore, the SDR was helpless in the matter and could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % 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 Notification No. 9/2001-C.E. As such they paid duty correctly as per the provisions of notification No. 9/2001-C.E. as amended by notification No. 11 /2002-C.E., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 by the department. There is no question of availment of twin benefits as alleged by the department. The Central Government deliberately intended to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,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 order is not tenable and is liable to be set aside. Likewise the penalties imposed on the appellant unit as well as on the managing partner also are n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
