2000 (9) TMI 872

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r]. - The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 30-11-99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed for not taking permission under Rule 173H of the Rules. 2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants is a small scale manufacturer and they are manufacturing parts of transf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts' letter dated 13-10-98, granted permission under Rule 173H of Rules. Ld. Counsel submits that as the Commissioner granted the necessary permission under Rule 173H of the Rules on 27-9-99, the penalty imposed on the appellants is not sustainable. He, further, submits that the Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, held that there was no mens rea intent to evade duty on the part of the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e D-3 intimations to the revenue. The appellants applied for necessary permission on 13-10-95 and when they had not received any response they again applied for the same on 28-8-98. On 3-10-98, the appellants made a representation to the Commissioner for grant of necessary permission and in this letter in para 9, the appellants made a specific mention about their earlier letters seeking necessary ....