9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 to June 1999. During the said period, they had opted for payment of duty under Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZQ of Central Excise Rules, 1944 under compounded levy scheme. The Commissioner vide order-in-original No. 58/Comm/Tech/ Processor/99, dated 2-6-1999 had fixed their monthly duty liability on their annual capacity of production as Rs. 4,00,000/- per month and the appellant had discharged duty liability accordingly. However, a show cause notice dated 4-8-1999 was issued to the appellant requiring them to show cause as to why the compounded levy scheme facility should not be withdrawn and why the duty should not be charged on the basis of the actual production under Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02 modified its final order dated 14-2-2002 holding that Modvat credit benefit would be admissible and directed the Commissioner to re-quantify the amount of duty demand. 3. In third round of adjudication the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 18-7-2003 re-quantified the duty demand by allowing the Modvat benefit, but restricted the quantification of duty for the period from January 1999 to June 1999 and did not adjust the excess duty paid in subsequent month. He also did not allow the cum duty benefit. 4. The matter came back to the Tribunal again and the Tribunal vide final order dated 3-8-2004 [2004 (177) ELT 975 (Tri. - Del.)] remanded the matter to the Commissioner with directions to allow cum duty benefit. 5. In fourth round ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng pendency of said appeal No. E/678/2005. The said refund was paid to the appellant on 24.05.2011. Aggrieved by the said order appellant is before this Tribunal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned AR for Revenue, perused the records and final order dated 11.02.2015 8. I find that the directions in the said final order dated 11.02.2015 were for adjustment of excess paid duty under compound levy scheme during the period from July, 1999 to November, 1999 for recovery of duty for the period from January, 1999 to June, 1999. I also find that when the said appeal filed in 2005 was pending disposal, on 24.05.2011, Rs. 20 lakhs refund was granted to the appellant which was the compounded levy duty paid during the period f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
