9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a new unit or was disentitled for any benefit and particularly under the Advalorem Duty Scheme, then, it is inexplicable as to why the Commissioner permitted them to pay duty under the said scheme, namely the Advalorem Scheme. It is that fact which has weighed with the Tribunal and that is how it has held the Assessee to be entitled to the benefit. If the application made on 12th September, 2001 for availing the option to pay duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme was rejected and as complained by the Respondent/ Assessee , without any hearing, which fact was complained to the Tribunal, then, all the more we do not find that the Tribunal was prevented while adjudicating and considering the legality and validity of the show cause notice a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice, according to Ms. Kamble , is that the erstwhile unit of M/s. Gaurav Synthetics did not claim the benefit of the Notifications and to which they were possibly entitled. They would have also been entitled to the benefit of Compounded Levy Scheme under section 3A of the Act/ para of the Notification. The unit was operating under Advalorem Duty Scheme in the name of M/s. Gaurav Synthetics, but they leased out the premises to the Respondent w.e.f . 11th September, 2001. The application for availing option to pay duty under Compounded Levy Scheme under the Central Excise Rules, 2001 was rejected by the Commissioner . Ms. Kamble relies upon the Notification, copy of which has been annexed to this Appeal paper book at page 22, to submit that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey had already paid ₹ 36 ,37,677 /-, which is more than sum equivalent to 50%, then, they were entitled to deemed credit. Thus, this stand, according to Mr. Kantawala was accepted and by relying upon Notification Nos. 28/2000 dated 31st March, 2000, 7 of 2001 dated 1st March, 2001 and 28 of 2001 dated 11th June, 2001. Since the duty is discharged and the values are not disputed, the Tribunal extended the benefit of deemed credit. There is nothing illegal or erroneous in law and hence this Appeal must be dismissed. In any event, by passage of time, this issue has become academic. 5. We have considered the rival contentions and what we have noted is that the Respondent/ Assessee was a processing and manufacturing unit. It was dealin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tinued to pay duty under the Advalorem Scheme. It paid that duty to the extent of 50% and which was accepted. If the stand of the Revenue was that it was not entitled to be considered as a new unit or was disentitled for any benefit and particularly under the Advalorem Duty Scheme, then, it is inexplicable as to why the Commissioner permitted them to pay duty under the said scheme, namely the Advalorem Scheme. It is that fact which has weighed with the Tribunal and that is how it has held the Assessee to be entitled to the benefit. If the application made on 12th September, 2001 for availing the option to pay duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme was rejected and as complained by the Respondent/ Assessee , without any hearing, which fact wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
