9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 47 machines instead of 32 machines for the moth of July, 2008. We further find that this issue has escaped determination in the aforementioned final order of this tribunal in the appeal. Accordingly, we allow the Misc. Application and hold that that appellant shall be liable to pay duty for the month of July only 32 machines, which were found in operation, as per the declaration. Window to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Anurag Mishra (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Joint Commr.) AR for Respondent Per: Anil Choudhary This Misc. Application have been filed for rectification/ clarification of Final Order no. 70448/2018 dated 05 March, 2018, in Appeal No. E/219/2011. 2. The grievance of the applicant is that the compounded levy scheme f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a total of 47 machines available in the factory, out of which 15 are in uninstalled condition, and they intend to operate only 32 machines for the month of July, 2008, and/ or till further amendment. It is also admitted fact that the appellant had informed the Range Superintendent by their letter dated 03 JULY, 2008, that they are stopping production on 15 machines out of the 47 machines and they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice was adjudicated by the impugned Order-in-Original, wherein the learned Commissioner also framed the issue as to correctness of Capacity Determination Order, dated 17 July, 2008. The learned Commissioner have held, following Rule 8 of PMPM Rules that the appellant is liable to pay duty for the month of July on 47 machines. So far other issue are concerned the learned counsel states that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself they informed the Department that they wish to operate only 32 machines out of the total 47 machines, which declaration was not found to be untrue. In this view of the matter we hold that there is no application of Rule 8 of PMPM Rules and accordingly, we set aside the demand of ₹ 93,75,000/- confirmed in the impugned Order-in-Original alongwith interest thereon. The other issue(s) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
