9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 2. After hearing learned advocate for the appellant, Shri Prakash Shah, we find that the said duty stands confirmed against the applicant appellant by denying them benefit of Notification No. 4/97-C.E. dated 1-3-97 in respect of the clearance of dyed yarn of polyester and of cotton as also dyed spun yarn. 3. The appellant's main contention is that the Show Cause Notice was not received by them as such they could not represent the case before the Original Adjudicating Authority. The said plea of the appellant was taken note by the Appellate Authority, who observed that the Show Cause Notice was sent to the appellant by Registered Post - Acknowledgement Due, and the Director of the said firm has ackn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o., 1990 (45) E.L.T. 201 (S.C.) as also to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Curt in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries - 2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). 5. Countering the above arguments learned DR Shri Pramod Kumar submits that it is the appellant who has claimed the benefit of the exemption notification in question and it is for them to show that they satisfy all the conditions of the notification. In as much as the appellant has failed to satisfy the conditions of the notification, they are not entitled to the same. The case law relied upon by the appellant are in respect of other notifications, where the language was different. He further submits that the issue before the Hon'ble Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf is not sufficient to held in favour of the appellant on the point of limitation. The condition places a continuous liability upon the appellant to keep on showing that the raw materials received by them were duty paid. As such we do not find prima-facie much merits in the above submissions of the appellant. 8. The appellants have also contended that their financial position is not sound in as much as their factory is forcibly taken by GIDC on the ground that they were unable to pay full lease rent to them. This point has been argued by the learned DR in favour of the Revenue to buttress his point that the Revenue's interest should be safeguarded. 9. By taking into account the over all facts and circumstances of the case, we d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
