2009 (3) TMI 750

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Maniprakash, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri P.K. Agarwal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. -  After hearing both sides, we find that the lower authorities have demanded duty of Rs. 47,978/- from the assessee for the period April to June, 06 by denying them the benefit of Notification No. 6/06-C.E., dated 1-3-2006. They have also imposed a penalty o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed that the certificate did not bear the Collector's signature and was not issued in the name and address of the assessee's Chinchwad unit. A further ground raised in the show cause notice was that the benefit of the above notification was not claimed. The allegations were upheld by the authorities and hence the above demand. 2. After hearing both sides, we note that the certificate issued....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessee has prima facie case against the demand of duty and penalty involved in the first of these appeals. 3. In the other appeal, the issue lies in a narrower compass though the amount of duty is higher. The short question arising in this case is whether the benefit of Notifications No. 108/95-C.E., dated 28-8-95 and 10/97-C.E., dated 1-3-97 was liable to be denied to the assessee fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., who were the contractors appointed by the Govt. of Rajasthan for implementing the project. The orders of the lower authorities did not dispute this fact. Therefore, we are of the view that it would be unjust to deny the benefit of the relevant notification to the assessee on the technical ground that the certificate produced under Notification No. 108/95 did not specify the assessee's name. It a....