2002 (10) TMI 543

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 18-2-2002. In the COD application, the appellants say that they had received the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) probably on 22-2-2002. The appeal is seen to have been filed before the Tribunal on 23-5-2002. If the above statement of the appellants is correct, there is a delay .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent. Subsequently, they cleared certain quantity of CR strips without payment of duty, claiming exemption from payment of duty under Rule 173H with reference to the defective goods received earlier as aforesaid. The Department by show cause notice proposed to recover duty on the goods subsequently cleared on the ground that the goods were not in the category of goods specified under Rule 173H(2) a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... el submits that the lower authorities have decided issue beyond the scope of the show cause notice. He points out that the show cause notice had proposed to recover duty on the ground that the assessee had not taken the permission of the Chief Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 173H and that the goods did not belong to a category of goods specified under the said Rule. On the o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... elong to the category of the goods specified under Rule 173H. To-day the DR has sought to elaborate this allegation by submitting that under Rule 173H, the goods subsequently cleared after reprocessing, re-making, etc., could not have been of the same dimensions as of the defective goods received back from the customers and, therefore, the goods in question which were found to be thicker than the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f duty claiming the benefit of exemption under Rule 173H were of higher thickness than the defective goods returned to them earlier by the customers. Therefore, prima facie, contravention of Rule 173H has been established in this case. Nevertheless, the lower authorities appear to have imposed a higher penalty under Rule 9(2) on the party than that what was prescribed under the Rule as maximum lim .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X