9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)].- This appeal arises from the Order in-Original No. 44/91, dated 13-5-1991 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise confirming duty demand of Rs. 1,42,333.93 under Rule 9(2) of the CE Rules read with Section 11A besides imposing penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the appellants in terms of Rule 9(2), 173Q and 226 of the C.E. Rules, 1944. 2. Appellants were a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the benefit. He has also held that there was suppression of fact, mis-statement and non following of the rules and hence he invoked the provisions of Section 11A for demand of duty. 3. The Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellants submits that the benefit of exemption Notification cannot be denied to the appellants on the sole ground that they did not follow the Chapter X procedure. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 (72) E.L.T. 689 are no longer relevant in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. as reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 582. The Hon ble Supreme Court further clarified that the benefit of exemption notification is available and the concession should be granted in case the intended use of material can be established by the importer or by evidence. He submits that there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit of the Notification has been denied. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra Mahindra (supra) which in turn relied upon a large number of judgments including the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Thermex Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which in effect over ruled the earlier judgment on this point in favour of the Revenue in the case of Kamal Cold Storage. We further find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
