9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent. [Order per P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. There are two applications before us, both filed by the Department (appellant), one for condonation of delay of the appeal and the other for stay of operation of the impugned order. There is no representation for the respondents despite notice. We have examined the records and heard ld. SDR. 2. The appeal is delayed by 32 days. This delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The appellate authority relied on the Apex Court s judgment in Shree Hari Chemicals Export Ltd. v. UOI, 2006 (193) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.), wherein it had been held that the benefit of proforma credit of duty paid on input was not to be denied to the assessee on the ground that such benefit had been claimed by them under a different provision. ld. SDR has reiterated the grounds of this appeal. 5. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the Departmental authorities and this Tribunal held against the assessee. The Apex Court allowed the assessee s appeal after holding that a benefit available to the assessee was not to be denied to them on the ground that they had claimed it under a wrong provision. We are of the view that the ratio of the Apex Court s decision is applicable to the present case also as rightly held by learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
