9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) in the impugned order dt. 17-7-2001 held as under : "I have carefully gone through the facts of the case and the submissions made in the appeal as well as at the time of personal hearing. Appellant opted for compounded levy scheme w.e.f. Sept. '97 and their duty liability was fixed at Rs. 1,66,556/-. In the month of Nov. '97, they paid only Rs. 85,000/-. I find once the capacity of the unit i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n rule (supra) has not been followed, the appellant was required to pay the duty as determined by the Commissioner. Order-in-Original is, therefore, upheld. Appeal rejected". Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed this appeal. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of re-rolled products. Compounded levy was introduced in reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held as indicated above. 3. Arguing the case for the appellant Shri Kulwinder Singh, ld. Counsel submits that the factory of the appellant started w.e.f. 17-11-97. He submits that since the factory worked only for 13 days, the appellant paid duty for 13 days. He submits that demand of the authorities for first payment of duty for the whole month is incorrect as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to deposit the duty for the full month which he did not do and therefore, the demand has rightly been raised and confirmed. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. We note that the appellant opted for payment of duty in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZP. We further note that in terms of this rule, duty was required to be paid on monthly basis. Therefore, in terms of this Rule, the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
