9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods on payment of duty at 6.25% for the period 3-4-1986 to 15-4-1986 whereas as per Notification 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 as amended by Notification 216/86 dated 2-4-1986 the goods should suffer duty of 15% as admittedly the respondents was availing the benefit of Modvat Credit. The short duty paid was sought to be recovered by the Supdt. who made an endorsement in the RT 12 memoranda relating to April 1986 detailing the aforesaid facts. The learned D.R. submitted that the Respondents are not disputing the fact that they would be liable to pay duty @ 15% on the goods in question. The Respondents were also put on notice as required under which the short levy was sought to be recovered as evidenced by the endorsement in the RT 12 assessment memo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge in circumstances was not available when the impugned order was passed, we are of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter remitted to the original authority for reconsideration of the Respondents claim with reference to their entitlement to the benefit of the Notification after they opted out of the Modvat Scheme w.e.f. 15-4-1986. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue. The Respondents have to satisfy the original authority about the opting out of their Modvat Scheme and also availing of other benefits. 5. [Assent per : V.P. Gulati, Member (T)]. I observe that the learned lower authority has held that while the RT 12 return was assessed by the Supdt. on 24-10-1986 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15-4-1986. The demand for differential duty, he pleaded, has been raised for April 1986 and the Respondents would be able to convince the authorities with facts and figures and also with reference to the rules that no demand could be made on account of their opting out of the Modvat Scheme in respect of the clearances made before opting out of the Modvat Scheme. I observe that the learned lower authority has not gone into the merits of the case, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondents and has not gone into the facts as pleaded by the appellant. I, therefore, agree with my learned Brother that the matter is required to be remanded to the original authority for the limited purpose of finding as to whether the Respondents wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
