9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he has held as under:- "7. The appellants have mainly argued that declaration made by the GTAs on their letter heads were sufficient to meet the requirement of the notification. In this respect I find that in Notification No. 32/2004-S.T., dt. 3-12-2004, abatement of 75% has been provided to the appellants subjec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the purpose of availment of abatement. It does not mean that the said declaration cannot be given by other means. The said requirement is not mandatory. From the show cause notice itself I find that the unit had the copies of separate declaration on the letter head of GTAs and the same were produced to the Audit party. Thus I find that the appellants can be said to have sufficiently met with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeared on behalf of the respondents and reiterated the findings of Commissioner (Appeals). I find that the Commissioner (Appeals)' order it is well reasoned and is in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemicals Inds. [2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)], wherein it has been held that Board's circular in favour of the appellants have to be applied. Fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
