2005 (2) TMI 661

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... resident]. Heard both sides. The applicant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the demand was confirmed and penalty of Rs. one lakh was imposed on the appellant. In this case the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of V.P. Sugar and molasses and the appellant applied for necessary permission to store non-duty paid sugar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s which will be cleared on payment of appropriate duty. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable. 3.The contention of the revenue is that the appellant without necessary permission removed non-duty paid goods outside the factory. As there was no permission at the time of removal, therefore, the goods are to be removed on payment of duty. As the goods were removed without payment of duty and with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was subsequently cleared on payment of duty and some quantity of sugar is still lying in the godown, therefore, the second time duty demand of duty on the same goods is not sustainable and set aside. As the appellant applied for necessary clearance and the revenue kept the request pending for 1 year, therefore, on account of non-action on part of revenue, the appellant cannot be penalised. In the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X