2008 (7) TMI 683

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er dated 18-12-2007 upholding duty amount was for the reason that triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry which was relied upon for the claim of the Appellant was not supported by the original triplicate copy thereof, but Photostat copy only. The ld. Appellate Authority below held that such a Xerox copy not being admissible in evidence, he had no choice to differ with the order of adjudication to that extent and the Appellant failed to succeed before him except relief for penalty as indicated above. 2. Ld. Counsel, Shri N.K. Chowdhury appearing for the Appellant submitted that relevant Rule which permits submission of triplicate copy does not debar the Appellant from appropriate relief of Modvat credit. But the authorities below only for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ad rightly discarded plea of Appellant for no production of original documents. Xerox copy not being admissible in evidence, the authorities below passed appropriate order and that should be given effect without delay since the Appellant has already been enjoying benefit for long time. 3.2 He submitted that the Appellant was issued show-cause notice as early in 1999. But for dilatory approach, of the Appellant adjudication was made on 24-11-2006. It should not raise the plea of financial hardship fully ignoring interest of Revenue. When show-cause notice was issued to the Appellant in 1999, it was quite aware that consequence of law shall follow if the Appellant fails to produce triplicate copy of Bill of Entry which is requirement of la .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... triplicate copy of Bill of Entry, it has no case for stay of realisation of demand while Revenue s interest is equally to be protected. Natural justice was followed at all stages granting opportunity to produce the evidence. But the reason why the appellant was unable to know its legal obligation was not in record. Failure to fulfill legal obligation invites consequences that may follow from the show-cause notice. Therefore, there appears no substantive reason to disagree with Revenue s contention at this stage. 4.4 It is also surprising that when the Appellant was called for in the course of hearing today to produce a copy of the Rule which it relies for relief, it failed to do so. Financial hardship as on 31st March, 2007 exhibited by B .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X