2004 (10) TMI 456

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....had cleared the cylinders to M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. at the contractual price of Rs. 535/- and paid duty at the tariff rate of 16%; that they were required to pay concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 9/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002; that the Assistant Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 11/2003 dated 21-10-2003 denied the refund of duty on the ground that benefit of Notification No. 9/2002 was not available to the respondents as they had not exercised the option in writing for availing the benefit of Notification; that, however, on Appeal filed by the respondents, Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order has allowed the refund claim to the respondents holding that substantial benefit cannot be disallowed for no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... decision has followed the Ruling of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Cadila Laboratories (P) Ltd. [2002 (142) E.L.T. 279 (S.C.)]. 3. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, on the other hand, contended that as per the value of clearance effected by the respondents, they were eligible for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 9/2002; that mere non-filing of option should not de-bar them from availing the benefit of Notification; that substantial benefit cannot be disallowed for mere procedural lacuna. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Notification No. 9/2002-C.E. provides concessional rate of duty subject to the conditions specified in Para 2 of the said Notification. Th....