9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi Vs Unimark Remedies Ltd reported in - (2008 -TMI - 34416 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD), it has been that the Notification does not require consignment -wise declaration on consignment notes - As the issue is covered in favour of the respondents by above referred decisions of the Tribunal, we find no infirmity in the view adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Notification No. 12/03-ST dated 20.6.03. 3. As the respondents did not submit the required declaration in proper format, Revenue entertained a view that they were not entitled to the 75% abatement in terms of Notification No. 32/04-ST. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them by way of show cause notice dated 13.10.06 proposing to confirm the demand of Rs. 6,917/-. The said show c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit or of Notification No. 12/03. He accordingly allowed the appeal. 4. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue. 5. We find that the issue is no more res-integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Tribunal. One such reference can be made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Sri Venkata Balaji Jute (P) Ltd Vs CCED Vishkhapatnam reported in 2010 (19) STR 403 wherein by following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
