TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be paid on the basis of actual clearances made by the appellant - in view of the refund of ₹ 20 lakhs there is no amount pending with exchequer paid under compounded levy scheme during the period from July, 1999 to November, 1999. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the said direction to deposit ₹ 2,95,142/-. Revenue is directed to adjust the said amount of ₹ 3,50,000/- towards partial recovery of duties confirmed and directed through impugned Order-in-Original - appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/70063/2017-EX[SM] - Final Order No. 70004/2018 - Dated:- 8-12-2017 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Vaibhav Dixit (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi (AC) AR Shri P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 23-3-2001 [2001 (132) ELT 150 (Tribunal)], remanded the matter to the Commissioner for re-quantification of duty holding that when the duty is charged on actual production by denying the compounded levy scheme, the assessee would be entitled for Modvat credit. The Tribunal also set aside the penalty on the appellant. In de novo proceedings, the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 15-10-2001 again confirmed the duty demand without allowing the Modvat benefit and cum duty price benefit, but he also took into consideration the subsequent period from July 1999 to March 2000 during which while the appellant had paid the duty of ₹ 20,00,000/- for the period from July 1999 to November 1999. The matter again came before this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce again reached this Tribunal which was decided through Final Order dated 11.02.2015 in Appeal No. E/678/2005 as reported at 2015 (329) ELT 514 (Tri. Del.). It was directed through the said final order dated 11.02.2015 that the excess duty paid under compounded levy scheme during the period from July, 1999 to November, 1999 should be adjusted for recovery of duty liability for the period from January, 1999 to June, 1999. The matter was remanded to the Original Authority for confirmation of duty on the basis of actual production. In compliance to the said directions impugned Order-in-Original was passed by the Original Authority wherein Original Authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 12,39,947/- for the period from January, 1999 to June ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o November, 1999. He has also found that in view of the refund of ₹ 20 lakhs there is no amount pending with exchequer paid under compounded levy scheme during the period from July, 1999 to November, 1999. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the said direction to deposit ₹ 2,95,142/-. The Original Authority has further confirmed the demand of ₹ 12,39,947/- for the period from January, 1999 to June, 1999 and appellant has no objection for the same. The only prayer that the appellant has made is to adjust ₹ 3,50,000/- paid by the appellant during the period from 08.09.2014 to 01.12.2014 as recorded in Para 7 of the impugned Order-in-Original. I, therefore, direct Revenue to adjust the said amount of ₹ 3,50, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
