2002 (11) TMI 391

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....when the Vice President of the appellant company Shri S.S. Thakur drew our attention to various documents by which it is seen that the assessments pertaining to the item in question were provisional. In view of the documents shown to the Bench, the Bench called for report from the department with regard to the submissions made and ld. SDR has filed a report from the Joint Commissioner dated 15-11-2002. In the report the department does agree that the assessments were provisional. However it is contended that it is the case of the assessee that they had suo motu availed the facility of making deferred payment of duty by wrongly claiming the exemption under Notification No. 22/96, which is not applicable to them. The provisions for deferred p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent in the grey fabrics are determined in the reverse process on the basis of clearances made. It also states that as per Rule 49A the assessees are required to pay yarn duty on grey fabrics along with interest at the time of clearance but they paid only yarn duty without interest and hence show cause notices were issued demanding interest under Rule 49A for deferred payment of yarn duty on grey fabrics. The letter further clarifies that in this case there is no short payment of duty involved. Hence the demand cannot be issued by invoking Section 11A. Since interest on the deferred payment of duty is demanded, the demand is raised under Rule 49A as per the directions of the Commissioner's letter mentioned. Ld. Representative on reading out ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Therefore he submits that since duty has already been paid as noted in the Deputy Commissioner's letter as well as in the show cause notice there is no question of further demand of duty or imposing penalty. He submits that the Commissioner has confused the issue and has not been able to grasp it which has led to pass the order. He submits that the order is not a speaking order and therefore requires to be remitted back for de novo consideration. He also points out from the Commissioner's order that the ld. Commissioner himself has noted the appellant's submission pertaining to the quantity of use of cotton yarn for different purposes which could be verified from the records. He submits that even having noted in Para 8 yet has proceeded t....