2015 (4) TMI 695

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubstantial questions of law. They are particularly, whether the Tribunal was right in giving benefit of deemed credit of 50% in terms of Notification Nos. 28 of 2000 dated 1st March, 2000, 7 of 2001 dated 1st March, 2001 and 28 of 2001 dated 11th June, 2001 to the Assessee /Respondent before us and thereafter, whether it was right in dispensing with the direction to pay interest and penalty. 3. Ms. Kamble submits that the Tribunal has completely lost sight of the fact that the Respondent/ Assessee was not the successor in interest and in law. In fact, what appears and clearly from the show cause notice, according to Ms. Kamble , is that the erstwhile unit of M/s. Gaurav Synthetics did not claim the benefit of the Notifications and to whi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....letely misdirected itself in law. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Kantawala appearing for the Respondent/ Assessee would submit that the Tribunal's order is not perverse. The Tribunal found that the Assessee informed the Central Excise Department on 23rd January, 2002 to follow the procedure as stated in the order passed by CESTAT on 9th January, 2002 and thereafter made payment under Advalorem basis. The show cause notice which was issued was resisted by pointing out that the Assessee was entitled for duty credit under deeming provisions of law to the extent of 50% of the duty payable and since they had already paid Rs. 36 ,37,677 /-, which is more than sum equivalent to 50%, then, they were entitled to deemed credit. Thus, this stand, ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....001 citing that in the said premises there existed an unit earlier named as M/s. Gaurav Synthetics, which was working under AdValorem Duty Scheme. Having leased out the premises, the present Assessee cannot be considered for any benefit even as a new unit in terms of proviso to Explanation to para 7(2) of the concerned Notification. However, the Commissioner directed that the Assessee shall pay duty under the Advalorem Scheme. 6. After having noted this undisputed fact, we are of the view that the show cause notice demanded differential duty. In the meanwhile, even the present Respondent continued to pay duty under the Advalorem Scheme. It paid that duty to the extent of 50% and which was accepted. If the stand of the Revenue was that it....