9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect is rejected but plea for benefit of cum-duty price is justified so matter remanded to original authority to work out the duty after granting benefit – penalty and interest are not justified as there is no suppression of facts - E/342/2005 - 1186/2007 - Dated:- 16-10-2007 - Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)(Oral)]. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission, they have contended that the Notification will have only prospective effect. On this point, they have relied on the judgment rendered in the case of UOI v. Ganesh Das Bhojraj - 2000 (116) E.L.T 431 which lays down the proposition that the effective date of Notification is the date of publication in the official gazette. 2.1 The learned JDR submits that this judgment is disting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not alleged in the show cause notice also. Therefore, the question of imposing penalty under Rule 173Q is not applicable. In this regard, following judgments are relied on. (i) Bharat Wagon Engg. Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 118 (Tri. - Kolkata). (ii) Vadhera Luminaries v. C.C.E . - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 211 (Tri. - Del.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s down that it has to be applied with retrospective effect. Therefore, the authorities have rightly applied the contents of the Notification to demand duty for the short period. In view of the restriction of benefit in terms of the Notification, therefore, the assessee's plea is negatived. 6.1. Insofar as the prayer for cum-duty, non-levy of penalty is concerned, the appellant's prayer is suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
