9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8214 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 7-10-2009 - F.I. Rebello and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri V. Sreedharan with Prakash Shah and Jeetu Motwani, i/by PDS Legal, for the Petitioner. S/Shri A.S. Rao with R.B. Pardeshi, for the Respondent. [Order]. - P.C. : Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The Petitioners were importing raw material (inputs) which was to be used in the manufacture of goods which had to be exported to avail of duty exemption. There is no dispute that the petitioners, in fact, had used the inputs to manufacture goods which have been exported. The petitioner, as per the policy, was entitled to import the raw materials against an advance license in terms of the policy in force for the period 1997-2002. Para 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the manufacture of final product is 0.206 metric tonnes as against 0.268 metric tonnes, permitted under the SION. The contention of the respondents is that the appellant was entitled to import 200.814 M.T. of Aluminium inputs without payment of duty and the exemption was available only to the extent of raw materials actually consumed in the resultant product which is exported. The respondents contention was that quantity actually consumed was 154.358 M.T. and for the balance quantity of 46.456 M.T., the petitioner was not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 43/2002. 7. The question for consideration is - once a notification is issued, setting out the norms, an advance license is issued and inputs imported against an advance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n set out in a large number of judgments. We may gainfully refer to the judgment in the case of Benara Valves Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2006 (204) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) = 2008 (12) S.T.R. 104 (S.C.). The learned Supreme Court has taken a view that from a cursory glance, it appears that the demand raised has no leg to stand, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. In B.M. Malani v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2008 (306) ITR 196 (SC), the Supreme Court has further observed that demand to pay any unjust dues per se would cause hardship. 9. In the instant case, the petitioners have not violated the terms of the notification. The advance license was issued to them. They have comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
