2008 (3) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peals) No. 401 /2005(Ahd-I)(AA/A-IV) dt. 16-11-2005, which was also passed on appeal against the order of the original authority No. 22 /AC/Offence/2004 dt. 25-11-2004. 1.2 Appeal No. E/873/07 is by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 162 to 164/2007/(Ahd-I) dt. 16-4-2007, which is passed against the order of the original authority No. 04/Addl.Commr./2007 dt. 12-1-2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3.  The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows :- 3.1 M/s. Jyoti Processors Pvt. Ltd. applied under Rule 96ZNA for payment of duty under compounded levy scheme, which was accepted by the Commissioner. 3.2 Seizure related proceedings :- (a) On 19-9-2001, consignments cleared from M/s. Jyoti Processors Pvt. Ltd. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmissioner confirmed demand of Rs. 27,14,682/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 11AC on M/s. Jyoti Processors Pvt. Ltd., of Rs. 5 lakhs on Ram Shyam Prints and Rs. 10 lakhs on Shri Nirmal Kumar Agarwal. Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 16-04-2007 al lowed the appeals of all the 3 parties holding that the allegation of clandestine removal of fabrics to M/s. Ram Prints & Shyam Prints without stentering has not been proved. The department is on appeal against this order. 4. Ld. Advocate filed detailed synopsis of dates and events relating to the seizure and subsequent demand on M/s. Jyoti Processors Pvt. Ltd. based on the delivery challans recovered from M/s. Ram Prints & Shyam Prints. He also submitted that inasmu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Jyoti Processors. Suspension and withdrawal of facility was upheld as their appeal was rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) order in appeal No, 137/ 2003(Ahd-I) dt. 12-3-2003. The withdrawal of compounded levy facility was effective from date of withdrawal. It cannot be retrospective. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in his order had not held that for past period the facility had been inappropriately or was wrongly availed. Had it been so then for 28-6-2001 to 19-9- 2001 the demand for differential duty i.e. what would be payable under normal valuation and mode of payment minus what had been already paid under compounded levy scheme should have been demanded. But nothing of that sort was done. Then how that order of Commissioner (Appeals) helps....