9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paper up to first 3500 MT during financial year 2001-02. During the course of manufacture certain cuttings and trimmings were arising which were being used captively for the manufacture of kraft paper and were being cleared duty free by claiming exemption under Notification No. 67/95, dated 16-3-95 on cuttings and trimmings. Since the final product was exempted fully from payment of duty up to 3500 MT in the said financial year, they were issued a show cause notice seeking to demand duty amounting to Rs. 40,497/- and Rs. 98,223/- along with proposal for imposition of penalty, as in such cases exemption under Notification No. 67/95 becomes in applicable. The matter was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the duty as deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. Similarly, in the case of Venus Industries - 2002 (149) E.L.T. 921, the Tribunal held that benefit of exemption notification is a conditional one as on fulfilment of conditions specified in the notification. It is not disputed that appellants have not claimed the benefit of Notification No. 77/85 at the relevant time by filing a classification list and as such the department never had an opportunity to verify as to whether the appellants did satisfy the conditions specified in the notification. It has also not been disputed by the appellants that they had also not filed any declaration which again prevented the department from verifying their compliance with the conditions subject to which benefit from exemption from duty of excise was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Notification No. 10/96 is available to them as has been clarified by the Board vide Circular No. 61/5/2001-CX4, dated 1-3-2001. He referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Venus Tyres Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1999 (31) RLT 21 (CEGAT), Cipla Ltd. - 2007 (218) E.L.T. 547 (Tri.-Chennai) and CC, Chennai v. Kankai Imports - 2008 (223) E.L.T. 62 (Tri.-Chennai) = 2007 (7) S.T.R. 190 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein it has been held that benefit of notification, not claimed at the initial stage, cannot be denied as it can be claimed at appellate stage also. Reference was invited to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Share Medical Care - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) wherein also it was held that even if the appellants does not claim the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
