9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... garwal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. After hearing both sides, we find that the lower authorities have demanded duty of Rs. 47,978/- from the assessee for the period April to June, 06 by denying them the benefit of Notification No. 6/06-C.E., dated 1-3-2006. They have also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the party. The goods in question were componen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and was not issued in the name and address of the assessee s Chinchwad unit. A further ground raised in the show cause notice was that the benefit of the above notification was not claimed. The allegations were upheld by the authorities and hence the above demand. 2. After hearing both sides, we note that the certificate issued by the Executive Engineer was countersigned by the Collector of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty involved in the first of these appeals. 3. In the other appeal, the issue lies in a narrower compass though the amount of duty is higher. The short question arising in this case is whether the benefit of Notifications No. 108/95-C.E., dated 28-8-95 and 10/97-C.E., dated 1-3-97 was liable to be denied to the assessee for the period Aug. 06 to Feb. 07 in respect of equipments/apparatus/applian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the project. The orders of the lower authorities did not dispute this fact. Therefore, we are of the view that it would be unjust to deny the benefit of the relevant notification to the assessee on the technical ground that the certificate produced under Notification No. 108/95 did not specify the assessee s name. It appears from the records that the position is more or less the same in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
