9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 20-10-2004 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the penalty, demand and allowed partly the appeal of the Respondent. The Revenue is in appeal against that part of the order-in-appeal by which the duty demand of Rs. 1,16,090/- (approx.) and the penalty imposed were set aside. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration one that the Respondent Imported Crude Palm Oil (edible gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this appeal. The respondents are not in appeal nor they have filed any Cross-objections. 3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused records. The Revenue is in appeal against the setting aside the demand of Rs. 1,16,090/- and the penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. It is the contention of department that the demand of Rs. 1,16,090/- is on the quantity of 26.496 MT, which is claimed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this way, were not used for the manufacture of Vanaspati, hence, the differential Customs duty as mentioned above, is required to be paid by the assessee, as per provisions of Rule 8 of Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for the Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his order-in-appeal at Para No. 6 has come to conclusion that - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be said to be wrong. Having accepted that the said quantity is short delivered, the Revenue cannot now turn around and seek duty from the respondent for not consuming the imported materials for intended purposes. If the respondent has not received the imported goods, how can he asked to show cause for non-consumption of the imported materials for intended purpose. 5. To my mind the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
