2006 (12) TMI 431

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 : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. In terms of the impugned order the appellant is required to pre-deposit duty amount of Rs. 1,52,886/- (Rupees One lakh Fifty Two thousand and Eight hundred Eighty Six only) for the period from 1-4-2003 to 6-5-2003 on account of wrong availment of Cenvat credit and equal amount of penalty has been imposed. Interest has also been demanded. As the issue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he notification is not given the appellant would be liable to pay duty at the rate of 16 per cent instead of 9.6 per cent as per the notification. The differential duty amounts to only Rs. l2,308/- (Rupees Twelve thousand Three hundred eight only). He explained to the Bench that the appellant is a State Government undertaking and is financially very sick with accumulated loss of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng the benefit of exemption Notification No. 8/03. The ld. Departmental Representative stated that no lenient treatment should be given to this State Govt. unit. He said this will become a precedent and it would be difficult for the Revenue. We do not understand the contention of the ld. SDR as the appellant is prepared to pay the differential duty and in view of several financial hardship faced b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X