9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... planation II - there is also a very strong case in the pleading for extending 'deemed CENVAT credit' for the period for which CLS is being denied. - Conditional stay granted. - E/552 to 555/2010 - MISC ORDER NO.40102 TO 40105/2013 - Dated:- 8-1-2013 - P K Das And Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri K S Venkatagiri, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri P Arul, Supdt. Per: Mathew John: In this proceeding, four stay petitions filed in four appeals are being considered. The main applicant is M/s. Jansons Textile Processors, an assessee paying excise duty. S/ Shri T.S. Natarajan and T.N. Kalaimani are partners of the said main applicant-firm. Shri J.S. Srinivasa Raghavan is the authorized signatory of the said main applicant-fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The case of the Revenue is that the applicant had an open-air stentor, which was used for drying clothes and for that reason they were not eligible for the benefits under the Compounded Levy Scheme in view of Explanation-II. 4. The next objection raised by Revenue is with respect to Rule 96ZNB which has a condition that for availing the CLS, the total of the original value of the plant and machinery installed in the factory should not have been more than Rs.3 crores. Revenue has made out a case that the total value of such plant and machinery in the factory of the applicant was more than Rs.3 crores and the adjudicating authority denied the CLS for this reason also. Consequently the adjudicating authority has demanded excise duty as per t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that these cannot form part of installed plant and machinery for deciding the eligibility for CLS. 7. The applicant further contended that if at ail the scheme is denied to the assessee 'deemed credit' on the inputs was available to them, which has also been denied by the adjudicating authority. According to the learned counsel, if the demand is restricted for the period from 01.05.2001 to 30.10.2001 (i.e., the period for which they were supposed to be having open-air stentor) and if 'deemed CENVAT credit' is given to the applicant, the demand on the assessee will come down to Rs.35 lakhs (approx.). The learned counsel's prayer is that a reasonable amount of pre-deposit based on this figure should be ordered and he will argue on the merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licant-assessee was not having any open-air stentor. However, for the period prior to 31-10-2001 the matter is arguable. We rely on the Explanation II of Rule 96ZNA, which is reproduced in para 2 of this order and prima facie, we are of the view that for the period 01.05.2001 to 31.10.2001, the applicant was hit by Explanation II. 11. However we do not see much merit in the argument of Revenue that spares and accessories in stock should be reckoned as installed plant and machinery. 12. Further, there is also a very strong case in the pleading for extending 'deemed CENVAT credit' for the period for which CLS is being denied. 13. Therefore, we order, the applicant to make a pre-deposit of Rs.35 lakhs (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs only) with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
