9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch eligible for exemption under N/N. 9/2003 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 even during the period 01.04.2005 to 10.08.2005 - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/326/2005 - FINAL ORDER No. 40544/2018 - Dated:- 1-3-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri Subhash Chander, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyam, AC ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , exempting, interalia, clearances made under job work. The department took the view for the period 01.03.2003 to 10.08.2003, the appellants would not be eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 9/2003. Hence, proceedings were initiated to demand central excise duty liability of ₹ 2,48.541/- with interest thereon and also imposition of penalty. These proposals were confirmed in adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the WPIL Ltd. judgment (supra). 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR supports the impugned order. 4. On going through the facts, we find that the LD. Advocate is indeed correct in assertion that the Hon ble Supreme Court has set the matter at rest. We find from the judgment that the Hon ble Apex Court has unequivocally stated that when later notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
