1999 (3) TMI 180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Notice was issued to the assessee for removing a consignment of copper wire for redrawing into thinner wire to M/s. Amar Wire without obtaining permission under Rule 57F and therefore demanding duty on the goods. It appears that the assessee did not reply. At the hearing before the Assistant Collector, the assessee contended that the goods were sent not to Amar Wire Industries (Amar for short) b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... permission for redrawing the wire, which it was stated was what was sent, was already available. It was also contended that the permission for sending the drawing was subsequently granted after nine months from the application sent by the assessee. 3. The Collector (Appeals) was persuaded by the later ground. He said that since the department had granted permission on October, 1991 for the purpo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , it is not possible to say that the permission would cover removal that were made before the permission was actually granted. Therefore any removal of goods in anticipation prior to the grant of such permission would not be covered by such permission. 6. It is also contended by the Advocate of the respondent that the goods removed under the permission granted in 1987. He produced one letter F. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for copper wire or refined copper exceeding cross sectional dimension of 6 mm. It is therefore not possible to conclude that what was removed was copper rod and not copper wire. 8. Even if the goods were copper wire rods, it would not really make a difference. The permission relied upon was granted under Notification 214/86. This exempts goods specified in the table thereto manufacture in a fact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... result is that the duty has been rightly demanded in the goods in question. Having regard to the fact that the goods were removed when the respondent s application for permission was pending for quite a long period, I do not think that penalty was justified. The appeal is allowed and Collector (Appeals) order is set aside. Accordingly, the Asst. Collector order demanding the duty on the goods is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X