9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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 for manufacture(s) of pan masala/gutkha came into effect from 01 July, 2008, vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lled 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 will continue production only on 32 machines. Such information is acknowledged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 the same stands settled by the final order of this Tribunal. 4. Heard the parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 Rs. 93,75,000/- confirmed in the impugned Order-in-Original alongwith interest thereon. The other issue(s) as decided in the Final Order remain as it is, and are not modified. Thus Final Order No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
