2011 (4) TMI 908

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... HASITPACD Rules, 1998 & 2000 and Section 3A of CEA 1944. The assessee had filed a declaration under NotificationNo.42/98-CE(NT) dated 10/12/98 declaring installation of five Hot Air stenters viz. Artos, (4 chambers) Harish Supra 5 (6 chambers) Harish Supra 7 (5 chambers) Primatex FS 600 S No.87603 (5 chambers) and Primatex FS 600 S No.80674 (5 chambers). The assessee was thus having a total of 5 stenters containing 25 chambers. The Harish Supra 7 Stenter (5 chambers) was not in working condition and sealed on 15/12/98. The Artos Stenter (4 chambers) was sealed on 15/12/1998 and disposed off in the first week of January, 1999. Primatex FS 600 Sl.No.87603 was dismantled on 30/07/1999.   1.2 However, the Commissioner of Central Excise, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV vide his letter F.No.V(55)30/11/T1/98 dated 25/05/2000 determined the total number of Hot Air stenters installed in the factory w.e.f 30.07.1999 as three and the number of chambers as 22.73 (16 chambers + 6.73 on account of Rollers & Cylindrical dryers) and w.e.f 23/09/1999 as two stenters and the number of chambers as 16.38 (11 chambers + 5.38 on account of Rollers & Cylindrical dryers) and the rate of compounded levy per chamber per month as Rs.2.0 lakhs.   1.4 The A.C.C.Ex Division H observed that for the period 16/12/98 to 31/12/98, the assessee failed to pay the compounded levy for 16 days instead paid for 15 days only. Accordingly, there was a short levy of Rs.82,282/-. He therefore, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case of UOI Vs. Beauty Dyers in W/P No.2366 to 2369 of 2002 vide order dated 18/07/2008, which was confirmed by the Hon ble apex Court on 06/02/2009 in SLP No.CC-1258-1261/2009 and in the case of CCE Vs. Valson Dyeing Bleaching & Printing Works, reported in 2010 (259) ELT 33 (Bom).   4. We have considered the submission made by the Ld. Advocate and find that in the case of Valson Dyeing Bleaching & Printing (supra) the issue before the Hon ble High Court of Bombay, whether the Hon ble Tribunal erred in holding that Notification No.42/98-CE(NT) dated 10/12/98 was ultra vires the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, since as contemplated under the statutory proviso in Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, the Notification No.42....