9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... – appellant claim for exemption under not. no. 67/35 is not acceptable – however no duty can be charged on impugned waste generated out of duty paid material, credit of which has not been taken - E/EDM-120/2005 and 88/2005 - A/471/KOL/2008 - Dated:- 16-4-2008 - Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T) and Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant, for the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n rightly denied to the appellants. 4. We have heard the ld. D.R. Shri Hitesh Shah, SDR who states that in such a situation no other exemption is available and particularly he states that exemption under Notification No. 89/05 is also not admissible as has been held in the following decisions of the Tribunal :- (i) Commr. of C. Ex., Raipur v. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no specific exemption notification to cover such a situation and also in view of the precedent decisions of the Tribunal cited by the ld. SDR, we have no option but to hold that the appellants do not have a case on merit. 6. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyaya, ld. Consultant argues that in the present case the impugned period of demand is from March, 1995 to April, 1999 whereas the Show Cause No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded period of time while confirming the duty amount for the normal period of limitation. For the limited purpose of computing the demand amount only for the normal period, the appeal is remanded to the Adjudicating Commissioner. As regards the penalties imposed, in the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the same are not justified and the same are set aside. The interest on the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
