2010 (12) TMI 1013

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppropriate duty - Held that:- Tribunal set aside the penalty. The respondent did not challenge the liability of payment of duty though it was under the bona fide belief that it could move the furnace oil produced in the Manali Unit duty-free under the warehousing procedure to its Nagapattinam Unit, where it could be assessed to necessary duty liability. When such movement of furnace oil produced a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and Service Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit is the appellant. The challenge is to the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 11-5-2010. 2. In fact, the impugned order of the Tribunal is the one remanding the matter back to the Original Authority for causing a verification of the respondent s claim that the furnace oil moved to its Nagapattinam Unit following the warehousing procedure has been process/c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m the Bench of the Tribunal, it was submitted that the re-warehousing certificates were duly received at Manali and no action for non-warehousing was initiated by the Department. 4. In the above stated background, when we examine the grievance of the appellant in this appeal, we find that there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law, to be examined, simply because the Tribu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X