2016 (2) TMI 202

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shri C. Ramkumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) ORDER PER R. PERIASAMI The present appeal is filed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order dt. 11.12.2003. This is a case where the appellant-assessee opted for compound levy scheme under Section 3A w.e.f. 1.8.1999. At the time of opting, appellants have declared the stock of bars and rods, ingots and billets whic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....submits that notification applies for the entire stock as once they have opted for compound levy scheme from 1.8.99. He submits that the Asst. Commissioner has correctly dropped the demand in respect of stocks of bars and rods and ingots and billets. He relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Chandigarh Vs Asian Alloys Ltd. - 2007-TIOL-183-SC-CX. 3. On the other ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... produced prior to 1.9.97. He relied the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in UOI Vs H.M.M. Ltd. - 2011 (272) ELT 338 (SC). 4. After hearing both sides, we find that the short issue in this case is whether the finished goods i.e. bars and rods and ingots and billets lying in stock as on 1.8.99 is chargeable to duty at specific rate of duty as per the notification No.50/97 or standard rate of 16%....