9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... achines and not four machines, in contrary to its submission/ written submission. This finding cannot stand in view of the monthly declaration filed by the appellant at the end of each preceding month wherein they have declared the number of cold rolling machine employed as two. Further, Revenue has not brought any evidence on record that the appellant have operated more than two machines during the disputed period, in violation of their declaration. Thus, the SCN is presumptive having no legs to stand. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 51563 of 2018-SM - FINAL ORDER NO. 51279/2019 - Dated:- 30-9-2019 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri R. Santhanam, Advocate for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification No. 17/2007-CE read with Rule 15 of Central Excise Rules. Further facts are that the appellant have six cold rolling machines for manufacture since April, 2011. Prior to April, 2011, appellant had four cold rolling machines. Appellant have been permitted by the Superintendent of the Range, for the financial year beginning with 01.04.2012 to avail the special procedure vide form ASP-II, submitted by the appellant on 30.03.2012. Further, the appellant have filed the prescribed form AR-8AA, being application for removal of stainless steel patta and pattis under the special procedure read with Rule 96ZC, wherein for each of the months beginning from April, 2012 the appellant at the end of the previous month, filed the application/decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PVC sheet, in uninstalled condition does not help the appellant, and they are liable to pay duty on the maximum number of machines installed by or on behalf of them during the three calendar month immediately preceding the calendar month in which the application for compounding is made. Accordingly, it appears that appellant is liable to duty for six cold rolling machines for the month of August, 2012 to October, 2012. Accordingly, it appeared that appellant have short paid the duty of (₹ 5,56,200/- - ₹ 1,85,400/-) or ₹ 3,70,800/-, which appeared to be recoverable alongwith interest and further penalty was also proposed. The Assistant Commissioner on contest was pleased to drop the show cause notice, relying on the ruling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho after hearing the parties and cross objection of the assessee, observed that in the defence reply of the assessee dated 31.12.2013 they have categorically submitted that out of six machines available/ installed only two machines were in working condition. Hence, out of six machines only four were not in working condition and therefore it cannot be treated as installed and have to be treated as dismantled. Further, concluded that there remains no doubt that the appellant have four machines installed and in working condition during the relevant period and accordingly the assessee was required to pay the duty under compounded levy scheme for four working machines from August, 2012 to October, 2012. Further, the contention of the appellant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
