2003 (12) TMI 565

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S Sekhon, Member (T)]. - Certain chemicals were cleared to a L-6 holder by herein, a manufacturer of excisable goods, on a CT-3 certificate issued. Duty as per Notification No. 43/88 was discharged. Subsequently it transpired that the permission was given by mistake to the L-6 holder by the Central Excise officers and the clearance was not covered under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e manufacture of Quinolphos and goods can be procured from M/s. Arlabs, Maharashtra and four other manufacturers. The CT-2 certificate clearly mentions that the OPDA is to be used in the manufacture of Quinolphos Technical which falls under Chapter Heading 3808.10 and therefore M/s. Arlabs Ltd., were right in removing the goods without payment of duty under Notification No. 43/88 by virtue of this....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ws were held by the Tribunal in the case of Fertilizer Corporation of India - 1990 (50) E.L.T. 494 as the Tribunal held that recipient of the goods, viz., the holder of L6 licence, who had undertaken to use the goods for the specified purpose and had executed a bond to ensure compliance with the notification was responsible for payment of duty. As the CT2 certificates in the present matter clearly....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s any misuse of the goods received under Chapter X Procedure, it was by the L6 holder. As far as penalty is concerned, the appellant has rightly pointed out that show cause notice has never been issued for imposing the penalty. The show cause notice was issued only for demanding the duty in view of this, the question of imposing any penalty on the appellant doesn't arise. In any case as the appeal....