2005 (12) TMI 405

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. The lower authorities demanded duty of Rs. 7,42,531/- from the assessee for the period Nov. 97 to Mar. 98, denying them the benefit of Rule 57F(3) the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that their claim under Rule 57F(3) has not been properly considered by the authorities. The demand of duty is based on a f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... de copies of such declarations filed today by their Counsel. It further appears to us that the clearances in question were made in terms of Rule 57F and not in terms of Rule 56B. The demand of duty appears to be based on a finding that the procedure under Rule 56B was not followed. What is borne on record is that the assessee was following the procedure under Rule 57F(3) and was claiming the benef .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X