9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Kumar Singh, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Department. Shri A. K. Dixit, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER Per Mr. Anil Choudhary : The revenue is in appeal against order in appeal dated 28.12.2006, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Lucknow. 2.1 The brief facts are that on scrutiny of ER I returns for the period July 2002 to September 2003, October to D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the appellant did not satisfy the condition number 2 (1) of Notification No.9/2003-CE dt. 01.03.2003 and accordingly, differential duty was demanded. The respondent assessee contested the SCN, they have rightly availed the benefit of Notification No.9/2003-CE dt. 01.03.2003 and have simultaneously cleared the goods under the brand name of the buyers at normal rate. The said fact was in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llow the appeal and setting aside the order-in-original observing that there is no contravention of the provisions of Notification No.9/2003-CE dt. 01.03.2003. Although, the appellant assessee failed to file declaration as required under Notification No.9/2003-CE dt. 01.03.2003, but the omission on the part of the assessee cannot be considered fatal for availing exemption. There being no contumaci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave availed exemption for SSI under the notification as permissible. 4. Having considered the rival contentions and in view of the uncontroverted fact that the appellant have availed exemption on the clearance of the un-branded goods and have paid full rate of duty on clearance of branded goods, we hold that the appellant have not violated the provisions of Notification No.9/2003-CE dt. 01.03.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
