9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dbole, Manager, for the Respondent. [Order]. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. BPS(259)/2003, dated 27-8-2003. 2. The relevant facts that arises for consideration are the respondents availed the facility of Chapter X procedure in terms of the Notification No. 6/CEX/2000 dated 1-3-2000 for receiving tyres and tubes without payment of Special Excise Duty. As per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recovery, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who quashed the said letter and directed no recovery to be initiated against the respondents. Revenue is in appeal against this order. 3. Ld. SDR submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has contradicted himself in the impugned order. He should have remanded the matter back to the lower authorities to formal adjudicate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the records. It is undisputed that the respondents were having L-6 licence, during the relevant period and followed Chapter X procedure for procurement of tyres and tubes without payment of duty as per Notification No. 6/2000. It is undisputed fact that the .respondents were granted necessary permission under Chapter X procedure and CT-2 certificates were issued by the Range Officer to procure t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir L-4 premises. Hence, no supervision charges were recoverable from them. It has also been contended that the supervision charges, if any, were recoverable only if the supervision, whatsoever, was provided beyond the normal office hours i.e. other than from 10:00 AM to 06.00 PM. Since the departmental officers had provided the requisite supervision within normal office hours, no supervision cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
