2001 (8) TMI 853

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Chattopadhyay, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the precondition of deposit of duty amount of Rs. 23,856.35 (rupees twenty three thousand eight hundred fifty six and thirty five paisa) and penalty of identical amount. 2. After hearing Shri S.N.S. Mohapatra, ld. adv. and Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, ld. JDR I find that the sai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....otices issued by different Commissionerates. In this connection, he refers to Delhi Commissionerate Trade Notice No. 25/97 dt. 25-3-97. In any case submits, the ld. adv. that mere non-filing of intimation in the prescribed format of D-3 will not result in denial of benefit, otherwise available to the assessee under the said rule 173H especially when there is no dispute about filing of intimation. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uld not act adversely to their benefit. He submits that there is no doubt about the receipt of the duty paid items and it is not also not disputed that their buyers have not taken any credit of duty at the relevant time based upon the duplicate copy of the invoice. In these circumstances the objections raised by the Revenue are unsustainable. 4. Shri S.N.S. Mohapatra also submits that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....both the sides and after going through the impugned order I find that the goods were admittedly received back by the appellants, who claimed the benefit under the provisions of Rule 173H and re-cleared the same without payment of duty after reprocessing. The technical objections raised by the Revenue should not come in the way of the appellant claiming the benefit. It is on record that intimation ....