TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed by them. 2. Shri P.R. Biswas, learned Consultant elaborating on his argument submits that as regard the first issue is concerned, television receivers were notified as one of the goods to which the provisions of Section 4A(2) shall apply w.e.f. 2-6-1998, vide Not. No. 18/98-C.E. (N.T.). Accordingly, they started paying duty under the said provisions, on their maximum retail price after availment of abatement as indicated in the said Notification. The Revenue, however, entertained a view that as the appellant had not declared the maximum retail price to them and they have not opted for payment of duty under the said Section, read with the Notifications in question, they are not entitled to pay duty under provisions of Section 4A. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under Rule 57G declaration is still pending before the Assistant Commissioner. As such, denial of Modvat credit on this ground was not justified. 3. We have also heard Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR for the Revenue who reiterates the reasoning of the authorities below. 4. We have heard the submissions made from both sides and have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced. Undisputedly, the television sets is mentioned as one of the declared items to which the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 4A would apply w.e.f. 2-6-1998, vide Not. No. 18/98-C.E. (N.T.). There is no dispute about maximum retail price of the said goods. We do not find any justification in the observation of the authorities below that provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner to condone the delay, followed by a reminder on 25-2-1998. We agree with the learned Consultant that the Assistant Commissioner should have first disposed of the said representations by the appellants before disallowing the Modvat credit. We also note that show-cause notice was issued on 19-3-1999 i.e. subsequent to the said representations by the assessee, without taking notice of the said representations. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned portion of the order and remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for first deciding the appellant's application dated 1-2-1999 read with letter dated 25-2-1999. While disposing of the said application, the Assistant Commissioner would take into consideration the guidelines issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
