9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eligible for entire 19.6% credit - tribunal set aside penalty holding that recipient-assessee was genuinely under the impression that they were getting goods from a DTA unit and are eligible for full credit - error having been committed by the supplier - Tribunal findings based on the facts available on record, require no interference X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les, 2002 by granting benefit of doubt to the respondent? 2. Heard the learned Additional Standing Counsel for appellant Revenue. The facts stated by the adjudicating authority have been reiterated in support of the proposed questions. 3. The facts-are not in dispute. The only question is as to whether any knowledge and intention could be attributed to the respondent assessee. The Tribunal has, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vaded. (d) The Commissioner (Appeals) have also concurred with the findings of original authority." 4. Thereafter, after hearing both the sides, the Tribunal has recorded the following findings: "6. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both sides. It is noticed that 100% EOU, who ought to have paid duty @ 19.6% chose to pay duty @ 16% which is applicable to clearance from DTA u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about such error having been committed by the supplier. In the circumstances, there is no error in law committed by the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. 6. In so far as the proposed question No. 1 is concerned, it is apparent that the same does not arise out of the impugned order of Tribunal considering that the said statement is only made as a statement of fact by the Tribunal and not as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
