9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived at since the appellants had brought in certain goods for repairs/re-conditioning under the provisions of Rule 173H, but had not removed the same within a period of six months as provided. The grounds taken in appeal are : - (a) The goods damaged in transit were returned to the factory for rectification of defect. D-3 intimations were filed. The defects were rectified. However, it took ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been prescribed under the Rule. Therefore, the penalty imposed of Rs. 1,000/- reading it with Rule 210 was not called for. (e) They have also stated that they were not provided with the copy of the Trade Notice No. 25/93 dated 28-4-93. By this Trade Notice, a time limit of six months was prescribed by the Commissioner which was within his powers as provided by Rule 173H(ii). Therefore, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... breach of the rules, the penalty is justified under Rule 210 when no other penalty was provided in the Rules in the Act. (c) It is also found that in this case, the Commissioner has provided a time limit of six months vide the Trade Notice and no credence of non-supply of the Trade Notice which is a public document widely circulated is required to be served on each individual, appellants. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
