9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate, for the Appellant. Shri B.R. Jagdish, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. - This is an appeal at the instance of the assessee. Challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner dated 7-6-2001 rejecting the appellant's claim for pro rata deduction in the quantum of duty payable under Rule 96ZP(3). 2. The assessees are manufacturers of Hot- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrendered on 22-3-2000. The assessee took the stand that they are liable to pay duty for the month of March, 2000 only at pro rata basis from 1-3-2000 to 22-3-2000. The request of the assessee was not granted by the Commissioner. He took the view that since the assessee adopted for payment of duty under Rule 96ZP(3), they are required to pay every month on or before 10th of the month. Even if they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule reads as follows : "Rule 96ZP(3). - Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in these rules, a manufacturer may, in the beginning of each month from 1st day of Sept '97 to the 31st day of March '98, or any other financial year, as the case may be, and latest by the tenth of each month, pay a sum equivalent to one twelfth of the amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 300/- multiplied by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hly instalments. 4. The provision relied on by the appellant which has been considered in the decisions referred above is as follows : "Provided that where a factory producing notified goods in operation only during a part of the year, the annual production thereof shall be calculated on proportionate basis of the annual capacity of production". 5. We are of the view that the above pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
