9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original dated 14-12-2000 passed by the Commissioner vide which he had confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 4700437/- for the period 13-1-1999 to 31-1-1999 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lacs on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n No. 2/99, dated 13-1-1999 under which the compounded levy scheme was sought to be denied to them, was effective only from February, 1999 in their case as they had already discharged their duty liability for disputed period i.e. 13-1-1999 to 31-1-1999 on 5-1-1999. The learned Commissioner, however, did not agree with this version of the appellants and passed the impugned order. 5. The learned c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts are not much in dispute. Prior to the issuance of amended Notification No. 2/99, dated 13-1-1999 the appellants were admittedly discharging their duty liability under compounded levy scheme. The duty for the month of January, 1999 as required by the provisions of clause (3) of Rule 96ZQ of the Rules, was paid by them by the 5th of January. By virtue of the amended Notification No. 2/99 they wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for that Excise Year gets crystalised and that right cannot be put in jeopardy during the subsistence of the concerned Excise Year. Therefore, the issue regarding the date from which notification in question dated 13-1-1999 shall be applicable to the case of the appellants when they had already discharged their duty for the month of January before the issuance of the same, in our view deserves to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
