9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise based on capacity to manufacture as applicable for the period commencing from 1-5-2001 to 31-3-2002. It is a common ground between the parties that the issues are identical and except for the figures, there is no difference in relation to the facts in the two petitions. Hence, for the sake of convenience, we shall refer to only the facts as narrated in SCA No. 10588 of 2001. 3.The compounded levy scheme was introduced by Notification No. 16/01-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-4-2001. The petitioner company filed an application in the prescribed form and contended that the investment in plant and machinery was to the extent of Rs. 2,87,98,314/- which was below the ceiling of Rs. 3 crores prescribed under the relevant rules. The said applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as specified in the rules. The respondents, for this purpose, relied upon Notification No. 32/2001-C.E., dated 28-6-2001 as modified by Notification No. 41/2001-C.E., dated 21-9-2001. According to the respondents, as stated in the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner was granted an opportunity of meeting with the amended parameters as prescribed by the subsequent notification, dated 21-9-2001 and the petitioner had already availed of the opportunity. 6.Mr. Trivedi, learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the petitioner had made an application at the point of time when notification, dated 21-9-2001 was not in existence and that the petitioner's case should not be governed by the said notification. That t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-2002 and the appeal would not be decided before that date, thus rendering the alternative remedy ineffectual. 9.We find that these petitions require to be allowed on limited count, without entering into any disputed questions of fact. There is no dispute as to the fact that the certificate produced by the petitioner of its Chartered Accountant was not disputed by the respondents by bringing on record any opinion of another qualified person so as to displace the opinion of the professional expert. In fact, the petitioner supported the Certificate of the Chartered Accountant by a further letter tendered after Notification No. 41/2001, dated 21-9-2001 wherein the Chartered Accountant had specifically stated that they had followed the conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
