9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmed against the applicant along with imposition of penalty of Rs. One lakh by denying them the benefit of Notification No. 4/2006 which grants concessional rate of duty to paper and paperboard or articles made therefrom manufactured, starting from the stage of pulp, in a factory, and such pulp contains not less than 75% by way of pulp made from material other than bamboo, hard woods, soft woods, reeds or rags. Condition No. 10 of the said notification is to the effect that exemption is applicable to paper and paperboard cleared for home consumption from a factory, in any financial year, up to first clearance of an aggregate quantity not exceeding 3500 MT. 3. The dispute in the present appeal relates to computation of clearance of 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se order does not apply to the present case. However, no reason stand given by him for making such a distinction. It is also seen that he has relied upon the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of B.K. Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [1993 (68) E.L.T. 575 (MP)] which deals with the computation of clearances and aggregate clearances in terms of small scale exemption notification No. 65/81, dated 25-3-1981. It is seen that small scale notification placed before the Hon'ble High Court was entirely different and cannot be compared with the language of the Notification No. 4/2006-Central Excise. The Tribunal's decision in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. deal with the exemption Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. which is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (appeals) without any reference to the evidence contrary to the findings of the Deputy Commissioner. As such, we agree with the learned advocate that the above reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) are factually incorrect. 7. Inasmuch as the issue stands prima facie covered by the Tribunal in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd., we are of the view that appellant is entitled to unconditional dispensation of the pre-deposit of duty and penalty. We order accordingly. 8. Inasmuch as the stay petition filed by the applicant stands allowed, the Revenue's stay petition is infructuous on account of the above reason as also on account of the fact that the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalty is not ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
