TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 1103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - The appellant is a partnership concern engaged in the process of man-made fabrics. Appellant was covered under the compounded levy scheme in terms of Notification 42/98-C.E., dated 10-12-1998. They had two stenters intalled in their factory premises. Vide letter dated 3-1-2000, the appellant informed the department about the closure of their second st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e taken into account for the purpose of determination of annual capacity. Appellant vide letter dated 2-3-2000 declared the details of the stenters installed in their factory. In the declaration, they had specifically stated that stenter no. 2 was sealed as on 5-1-2000 and continued to be closed and sealed as on 1-3-2000. Subsequently, appellant removed the stenter from the factory totally. Howeve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....abatement. He drew our attention to explanation 4 to Rule 5 of Rules 2000 which specifically provided that hot air stenter which are permanently closed or sealed as on 1-3-2000 shall not be taken into account for determination of annual capacity. He submits that the whole basis of order of the ld. Commissioner is wrong. 3. We have considered the submissions. We find that in this case the imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ermination of annual capacity. Admittedly, in this case the appellant had got the stenter sealed on 5-1-2000 and it is nobody's case that the stenter did not remain sealed till it was removed from the factory in April 2000. Therefore, in terms of explanation IV to Rule 5, this stenter should not have been taken into account for the purpose of determining annual capacity. Therefore, we find that th....