TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 795
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the Appellant. Dr. Manoj Kumar Rajak, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The dispute in the present appeals relates to valuation of unbranded chewing tobacco classifiable under Chapter 24, which the appellant is clearing to its own unit. 2. After hearing, it is seen that originally, there was a dispute as regards the applicabilit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efit of Notification at the instance of the Revenue. The value adopted by the Revenue for payment of duty does not stand accested and was enhanced vide impugned order with differential duty to the tune around Rs. 78.50 lakhs. Commissioner has also imposed personal penalty of identical amount in terms of Section 11AC and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh u/r 173Q(1). In addition, a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant. As such, the appellant's plea as regards the availability of the said Notification does not survive. 6. Countering the arguments of the learned SDR, Shri Prakash Shah, learned Advocate submits that when the Revenue did not allow them the benefit of notification during the relevant period in question, the appellant's following Chapter X Procedure does not arise. In any case, the en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the case of C.C.E., New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) will not strictly apply to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as in the present appeals, the appellant were not allowed by the Revenue itself to avail the benefit of notification, thus not enabling them to follow Chapter X Procedure. It is not the case where the benefit of the notification has been soug....