9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant. Shri K. Sambi Reddy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 46/2006 C.E., dated 14-2-2006 confirming demands of Rs. 14,967/- besides interest and penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant had informed the department pertaining to scraping of tyres which were of not good quality. They communicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have done. The department s plea that sufficient time was not granted to them is therefore not sustainable. 3. The learned JDR reiterated the department s view. 4. We have gone through the show cause notice and the impugned order. There is no dispute in case pertaining to the appellant informing the department to scrap 531.60 kg of tyres after giving notice. They waited for 20 days and thereaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 14,674/- on 8 No. of tyres cleared by the appellant on the allegation of clandestine removal. This allegation is not sustainable, as the appellant had informed to the department of such removal as scrap tyres and had paid duty accordingly. The impugned order confirming demand is not justified and the same is set aside by allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
