2009 (3) TMI 757

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hri Goutam Ray, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. 2. There is a demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 31.00 crores and equal amount of penalty apart from interest on the appellant M/s. IOC, Barauni. The department s case as brought out in the adjudication order is that the appellants removed the goods which the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he consignor s name and hence the appellants cannot be faulted with. As regards the removal and recording in the AR 3A procedure, he submits that this has been done as per the prevailing practice in addition to following the CT2/Annexure I certificate procedure. 4. Hence, the ld. Sr. Advocate pleads that having complied with the relevant requirements of the notifications, there can be no duty, i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ey cannot be denied the exemption since they have complied with the conditions of relevant exemption notification in as much as the goods have been cleared on the basis of CT2 certificate/Annexure-I certificate. Accordingly, we set aside the demand for duty, interest and the penalty. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) - - Tax .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X