9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions incorporated therein. This Rule is subject to the qualification enacted in Section 8, General Clauses Act, which in itself is a Rule of general application. (National Sewing Thread Co. v. James Chadwick & Bros. - [1953 (5) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT]). Therefore, the method of calculation adopted by the Revenue is held to be incorrect - It cannot be denied that the demand was made within the stipulated period of 1 year without invoking the extended period - Decided against assessee. - E/2743/2006 - A/1543/2011-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 30-8-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Dr. P. Babu, JJ. Shri T.C. Nair, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.S. Sangia, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Junagarh are holdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating authority found that the rates of depreciation would be effective from 26-2-2004 and the duty demanded was confirmed. However, he did not impose any penalty, but ordered to pay interest on the remaining amount not paid. 2. In the appeal submitted by the appellant against this order, it was mainly contended by them that once No Dues Certificate was issued demanding duty is incorrect. Once it is confirmed that they had complied with necessary formalities, as per the permission issued by the Development Commissioner, KEZ, the Department is debarred from raising any issue of short payment of duty. In the instant case, the de-bonding was done on the basis of permission given on 29-2-2003 and hence the rate of depreciation as on 29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is stand, they placed reliance on the Tribunal s decision in their own case v. CCE Nagpur as reported in 2004 (178) E.L.T. 587 (Tri.), which has been upheld by Hon ble Supreme Court as reported in 2005 (181) E.L.T. A178. A bare perusal of the decision of the Tribunal (supra) shows that the order was in relation to the enforcement of assessment under Section 4(a) and the issue was that the assessment could not be re-opened by change of C.B.E. C. view. The facts of the case of this order are totally different from the present case. We, therefore, cannot agree to follow the ratio of this order and subsequent order of Hon ble Supreme Court. 5. The procedure to exit from EOU scheme is as per the EXIM Policy of the Government. The procedure i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
