TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 492
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - Vide his impugned order passed by the Commissioner in de novo proceedings, demand of duty of Rs. 4.26 lakhs has been confirmed and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed on the ground that the appellant has sent the raw material i.e. Benzene for the process of chlorination to their job worker, after taking permission in ter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant for permission to remove the inputs to their job worker under Rule 57F(2), ld. Advocate submits that the requisite information was supplied to the Revenue and after examining the entire facts, Assistant Commissioner vide his letter dated 21-4-1987 accorded the permission to remove the inputs to their job worker and receive back the intermediate products in their factory for further utilizat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er hearing the ld. DR, we find force in the above contention of the ld. Advocate. The perusal of the entire correspondence exchanged by the appellants with the Revenue reveals that the permission it to send the inputs to the job worker and receive back the processed goods from them was granted by the Revenue with full knowledge that the appellants final product attracted nil tariff rate. If that b....