9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of permission for closer of one chamber with effect from 24-6-1999 is not proper - Held that:- merely because the Revenue has taken time in granting permission especially when the appellant have applied for one and a half month before the period in question, the same cannot be taken as a ground for upholding the appellant’s duty liability and the appellant cannot be allowed to suffer on account of the lapse on part of the Revenue, appeal is thus allowed - E/1399/2010 - A/924/2011-WZB/AHD, - Dated:- 20-5-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. Shri H.D. Dave, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.K. Mall, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. Duty of Rs. 5,70,000/- and penalty of Rs. 7,19,016/-, stands confirmed against the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence in the format. As such, the Revenue's grant of permission for closer of one chamber with effect from 24-6-1999 is not proper. As such, submits the learned advocate that the grant of permission should be related to their earlier letter on 19-1-1999 when intimation was given to the Revenue. If the department has taken time in granting permission in spite of their having filed the application in question, the appellants should not be made to suffer on account of the said delay on the part of the Revenue. 4. Learned DR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the reasoning adopted by Commissioner (Appeals) for rejection of the appeal. He submits that as per the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. I fully agree with the appellant that merely because the Revenue has taken time in granting permission especially when the appellant have applied for one and a half month before the period in question, the same cannot be taken as a ground for upholding the appellant s duty liability and the appellant cannot be allowed to suffer on account of the lapse on part of the Revenue. Having applied one and a half month prior to the closer the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules stand complied with by the appellant. 6. In view of the above, I set aside the confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty upon the appellant and allow their appeal with cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
