2004 (6) TMI 494

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the said appellant was more than Rs. 150 lakhs, they were not entitled to the benefit of the exemption during the next financial year. Though the Notification in question was amended vide Notification 119/89-C.E., dated 27-4-89 and the eligibility criteria was increased from Rs. 150 lakhs to Rs. 200 lakhs but the revenue entertained the view that during the period 1-4-89 to 27-4-89 the appellant was required to pay full rate of duty. Accordingly, after following the process of adjudication duty of Rs. 1,84,900/- was confirmed against the appellant. 2. Shri M.H. Patil, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant fairly agrees that the issue stands decided against the appellant by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r to 27-4-1989 should be considered as deposit and should be adjusted against the duty now being confirmed. 3. Shri S. Singhal, Ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that inasmuch as the issue is decided against the appellant, the appeal on merits is to be rejected. As regards the availment of exemption, he submits that the appellant was required to pay duty during the period 1-4-1989 to 26-4-89 as such there is no question of adjustment of the same. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and it is conceded by the ld. Advocate that the issue stands decided against them by the Larger Bench in the case of Rotomould (India) Pvt. Ltd. referred supra. As regards, the prayer for adjustment in ter....