9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res availing compounded levy scheme as per amendment above. Goods manufactured before 1.5.2001 but cleared on or after such date not covered under compounded levy scheme as per Rule 96ZNB of erstwhile Central Excise Rule, 1944. Duty paid on ad valorem basis as per Show Cause Notice. Manufacturer in the present case not availed compounded levy scheme as per finding of Tribunal. Respondent being man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal which has taken the view that as the Respondents had cleared the goods available at the end of 30-4-2001/1-5-2001 on payment of ad valorem duty, the compounded levy scheme would not be applicable to them. 3. A Notification came to be issued on 1st March, 2001. Under this Notification the manufacturer of goods were entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inserted in Notification of 1st March, 2001 and the same reads as under :- "4A. The provisions of this notification shall not apply to a manufacturer who avails of the special procedure prescribed under Rule 96ZNA and pays the specified sum of duty in accordance with a notification issued under Rule 96ZNC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944." 5. It will thus be clear that Rule 96ZNB provided that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has also been recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order. 7. Once that be the case, we find that the Tribunal correctly addressed itself to the issue in question. The learned Counsel for the appellants sought to contend that there is difference between manufacture and goods. In our opinion the Notification applied to manufacturer of the goods. In the instant case the respondents are manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
