9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng in stock as on 31-3-2003 was allowed. Subsequently, amended Notification was issued whereby the assessee was to declare the stock as on 1-4-2003. 3. The Revenue thereafter issued a clarification dated 28-3-2003 to the effect that in pursuance to the Notification No. 25/2003 dated 25-3-2003, the trade is informed that in case the declared stock as on 31-3-2003 is kept in a place other than the registered/to be registered premises, the address of the said premise or premises where such stock is kept, must be declared by the assessee in the stock declaration. The appellants filed declaration on 1-4-2003 declaring the stock as on 31-3-2003. Subsequently an amended notification was issued whereby the assessee was to declare the stock as on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in a godown or with the transporter. Therefore, in this situation, the appellant had not complied with the condition of deemed credit order. The contention is that it has been clarified by the Board that in case the stock of grey fabrics is kept in a place other than any registered/to be registered premises, the address of the said premise or premises where such stock is kept, must be declared in the stock register. As the appellants had simply mentioned at a godown at Nayagaon or with the transporter, without giving any particulars regarding the address or the name of the transporter, the appellants are not entitled for credit. The revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. In respect of penalty, as the levy on grey fabrics was introduced for the first time with effect from 1-4-2003, therefore, it is not a case for imposition of penalty. The penalty is set aside. 12. In the appeal filed by the revenue, the contention is that the appellants are liable to pay interest. The contention is that present respondent had not utilized the credit. Therefore, they are not liable to pay interest. The respondents relied upon the decision of Godrej Soaps Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2004 (170) E.L.T, 102. I find that that in the case of Godrej Soaps, it is held that interest is leviable from the date of utilization of credit and not from the date of entry in RG-23 Part II. In view of the above position, I find no meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
