9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted:- 25-2-2009 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri W. Christian, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sameer Chitkara, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of POY, which was being supplied by them to other 100% EOU as also was being sent to their job workers for conversion in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to other 100% EOU. As such, we find that the issue is settled in favour of the assessee. We, accordingly, set aside the demand of duty of Rs. 6,73,288/-. 3. Another demand of Rs. 10,39,624/- has been confirmed against the appellant as NCCD in respect of POY cleared to their job workers. The appellant is not contesting the said demand, but submits that the non-payment of the same has occurred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in its totality. 4. We find force in the above contention of the learned advocate. The POY was being sent to job workers under proper documentation and there are no allegations of any mala fide on the part of the assessee. We have already set aside the duty confirmation of Rs. 6,73,288/-. 5. Penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the General Manager, in these circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
