9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that:- Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has dealt the issue in detail and clearly brought out that appellants have failed to produce any evidence that stock of goods lying in appellant's factory were manufactured prior to 1.9.1997. Further, we find that Revenue's verification report as per the appellant's monthly returns filed for the months of July 97 and March 99 the closing stock of bars a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri C. Ramkumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) ORDER PER R. PERIASAMI The present appeal is filed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order dt. 11.12.2003. This is a case where the appellant-assessee opted for compound levy scheme under Section 3A w.e.f. 1.8.1999. At the time of opting, appellants have d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.50/97 and not standard rate of duty of 16% advalorem. He submits that notification applies for the entire stock as once they have opted for compound levy scheme from 1.8.99. He submits that the Asst. Commissioner has correctly dropped the demand in respect of stocks of bars and rods and ingots and billets. He relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Chandigarh Vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said notification is applicable only for the stock which were produced prior to 1.9.97. He relied the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in UOI Vs H.M.M. Ltd. - 2011 (272) ELT 338 (SC). 4. After hearing both sides, we find that the short issue in this case is whether the finished goods i.e. bars and rods and ingots and billets lying in stock as on 1.8.99 is chargeable to duty at specific rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tured prior to 1.9.97. Since the appellants have opted only on 1.8.99 and there is no evidence to show that the stocks were prior to 1.9.97 we find that rate of duty is applicable is as per the tariff rate of 16% advalorem. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected. (Dictated and pronounce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
