9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Shri P.K. Agarwal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has held that the Notification 103/95 will apply from 4th July, 1995, the date on which it was issued and that the polyester yarn that the appellant manufactured enjoyed in terms of Notification 36/95 will cease to be available from 4th July, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partmental representative contends that the law as it stood on the date of clearance of the goods made it clear that duty was to be paid on that day and there was no justification for not paying duty. He refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Jain Agencies v. UOI, 1994 (72) E.L.T. 805 in this regard. 4. In Pankaj Jain Agencies, the Supreme Court refused to accept the contention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e course of events make such a position highly improbable. The notification itself is dated 4th July, 1995, which shows that it was signed and issued on that day. Even allowing for the utmost despatch, it is difficult to consider that the existence of the notification could have been known to the appellant and the department before the late afternoon or evening of that day. Whether, when it was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought to be defended appears to be contrary to the settled law. What that we wish to emphasise is that it is not proper of the department to impose penalty solely because the appellant declined to comply with the officer s demand for depositing the duty. This is the reason that the Commissioner has ordered in his order. The show cause notice does not furnish any specific ground. In this situatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
