9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under compounded levy as per the case law of Gayatri Iron Industries vs. CCE Lucknow (2012 (2) TMI 441 - CESTAT NEW DELHI). Learned AR could not bring any documentary evidence to the notice of the bench that such a declaration was in fact filed by the appellant except to a mention made in the OIO passed by the Adjudicating authority. Appellant has received information through RTI to the effect t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his bench as per order No.A/10175/2014 dated 11.02.2014. 2. Shri N.J. Gheewala (AR) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that appellant was paying duty on the basis of actual production in view of an order passed by Gujarat High Court in the case of the appellant. That it is evident from Annexure 'A' to the show cause notice dated 04.8.1999 that appellant unit was closed up to Fe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that no closure intimation was received by the department. It was also his case that appellant did file a declaration under compounded levy scheme, therefore, at least for the period of working of appellant's unit duty should have been paid at compounded levy rate. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Case of the appellant is that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
