9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant emphatically submits that the applicants never opted for determination of annual capacity of production. He submits that the applicants had opted right from the beginning for payment of duty on actual production. The ld. Counsel also furnishes a copy of a letter dated 30-9-1997. He subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Consultant submits that since there was an option for payment of duty on actual production and since the applicant paid duty on actual production the question of any further demand was not warranted. He therefore prays that pre-deposit of duty may be waived. 2. The ld. Consultant also submits that the applicant is facing financial difficulties inasmuch as during the financial year 2000-2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30-9-97. The ld. DR submits that it is evident that the applicant had opted for payment of duty on actual capacity of production which was provisionally determined. The ld. DR submits that in this view of the matter and in view of the Apex Court ruling about the option that an option once exercised shall continue for the financial year [2000 (117) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.)]. He submits that in terms of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicant. We also note that the applicant by its letter dated 30-9-97 and again by its letter dated 31-3-98 had opted out of the provisions of Rule 96ZO(3). In this view of the matter prima facie it appears that annual production capacity determination shall be applicable only from 1-9-97 to 31-3-98. During this period the total differential duty is approximately Rs. 1,42,00,000/- (Rupees one cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
