TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (6) TMI 401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) (for the Bench)]. - This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 257/CE/JAL/2004 dated 29-5-2004. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows :- (a) The appellant has two units, one at Kapurthala and the other at Hoshiarpur. (b) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty held that for the purpose of determining the eligibility to the exemption under Notification No. 5/99 in respect of Hoshiarpur unit, entire value of clearance of products of Kapurthala unit including those covered under Notification No. 5/99 should have been disclosed and taken into account and accordingly confirmed the demand of Rs. 79,911/- and imposed equal amount of penalty. The Commissione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant for the purpose of determining the exemption to the Hosiarpur unit. However non-furnishing of these details was not intentional. On perusal of the record, we find that there is no evidence to suggest intention to evade on the part of the appellant. We are inclined to accept that it was due to lack of understanding of the provisions of Notification. As it appears to be case of difference in ....