9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same has to be adjusted against their duty liability for the period from January 1999 to June 1999 - the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for re-quantification of the duty demand on this basis - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/678/2005 - Final Order No. A/50904/2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 11-2-2015 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) and S.K. Mohanty, Member (J) Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.S. Negi, Authorized Representative (DR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. - The facts leading to filing of this appeal are, in brief, as under. 1.1 The appellant are manufacturers of processed cotton fabrics. The period of dispute in this case from January 1999 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-original dated 15-10-2001 again confirmed the duty demand without allowing the Modvat benefit and cum duty price benefit, but he also took into consideration the subsequent period from July 1999 to March 2000 during which while the appellant had paid the duty of ₹ 20,00,000/- for the period from July 1999 to November 1999. The matter again came to the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide final order dated 14-2-2002 set aside the enhanced demand for July 1999 to March 2000 period - ₹ 10,53,717/- for which no show cause notice had been issued and remanded the matter to the Commissioner to verify the availability of deemed Modvat credit and pass appropriate order. Subsequently, the Tribunal vide miscellaneous order dated 19-7-2002 modi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that in view of this, the excess duty paid by them should be adjusted against their duty liability for January 1999 to June 1999 period. 4. Shri M.S. Negi, the learned DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The dispute arose as while the appellant had opted for compounded levy scheme and their monthly duty liability had been fixed by the Commissioner vide order dated 2-6-1999 as ₹ 4,00,000/- per month and during January 1999 to June 1999 period, the appellant discharged duty liability accordingly, but the Department, in August 1999, issued a show cause notice for withdrawal of the compounded levy s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
