2000 (7) TMI 694

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Appellant. Shri R.K. Roy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. -  All the three appeals are being disposed by a common Order as the issue involved in all the three is identical. 2. The appellants had sent the inputs under the provisions of Rule 57F(2) [subsequently Rule 57F(3)] to their job-workers for conversion of the same into some inte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ive, available under the law. The above contentions were not accepted by the authorities below who confirmed the demand of duties against the appellants and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000.00 in each case. 3. Shri S.K. Roychowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the provision of Rule 57F(3) was amended by Notification No. 6/97-C.E.(N.T.), dated 1-6-1997, vide whic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....could not have deviated from the same. As such, the Orders passed by the authorities below are legal. 5. After hearing both sides, we are convinced with the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate that there was no such condition in Rule 57F(3) at the relevant time. As such, it cannot be said that the appellants had contravened the provision of the said Rule so as to deny them the benef....