TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (4) TMI 435
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may briefly be stated as under : 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of newsprint falling under sub-heading 4801.90 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. The scrutiny of their monthly returns filed in Form RT 12 for the month of April, 1995 revealed that they had cleared newsprint weighing 1141.179 MT valued at Rs. 4,04,88,556/- without payment of duty under Notification No. 60/88, dated 1-3-1988. But they were entitled to claim the benefit of this notification only if they had produced entitlement certificate issued by the Registrar of Newsprint before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner within a period of one month from the date of clearances. They rather failed to produce the entitlement certificate/purchase certi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as actually supplied to the newspapers and the same were also used by those newspapers in printing the news. The Commissioner did not accept the version of the appellants and he confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 2,02,478/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 20,25,000/- on them through the impugned order. 4. Being dissatisfied with this order of the Commissioner (adjudicating authority) the appellants have come up in appeal. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants has assailed the validity of the impugned order on the ground that the delay in submitting the entitlement certificates for the month for April, 1995 had been wrongly not condoned by the Assistant Commissioner and that the newsprint supplied by them had been used by the ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iod of one month from the date of the clearances of the newsprint. Their prayer for the condonation of the delay was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and they did not challenge that order of the Assistant Commissioner before the competent authority. Therefore, the benefit of the notification, mentioned above, could not be legally allowed to them. 8. Apart from this, the requisite certificates produced by them in terms of the Notification No. 60/88 (referred to above ) also did not in any manner help them much for claiming the benefit of this notification. They produced three certificates issued by the Registrar of Newspapers for India in order to claim the benefit of this notification. The first certificate of entitlement prod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the name of M/s. Amrit Vanaspati Company Ltd., Ghaziabad. This certificate did not bear the name of the appellants. Therefore, by this certificate the appellants could not legally clear the newsprint at nil rate of duty in terms of the exemption Notification dated 1-3-1988 referred to above. Only firm M/s. Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd., Ghaziabad could avail the benefit of exemption under this certificate. 10. Thus none of the certificates referred to above, produced by the appellants were in their names so as to enable them to claim the benefit of exemption Notification No. 60/88, dated 1-3-1988 and to clear the goods without payment of duty. The benefit of this notification, as observed above, could be taken only if this valid entitle....